Volume 618 Week 60 - Wednesday 23 June 2004 
Volume 618 Week 60 - Wednesday 23 June 2004 
[Volume:618;Page:13841] 
Wednesday 23 June 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Parole Act—Community Risk 
1. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: When he promoted the Parole Act 2002 what level of risk to their safety did he think the community should be obliged to accept before the Parole Board could decline parole under section 7 of that Act and what does he believe is a level of risk that is “undue”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 By making safety of the community the paramount consideration in any Parole Board decision the legislation clearly directs the board to ensure that any decision to release a person should be a low-risk decision. Assessing the level of risk of course cannot be done through legislation. It must be a matter of judgment by the Parole Board in looking at the individual case considering all the evidence before it as to whether reoffending is likely and the possible nature and seriousness of such reoffending. 
Stephen Franks 
: When the likelihood of reoffending within 2 years by a medium-risk prisoner is at 70 percent does the Minister think the level of risk of harm to the community is undue when a medium-risk prisoner is released? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Act sets out clearly that in making the decision the Parole Board needs to look at the likelihood of reoffending and it has particular assessments such as the Static-99 that it works to on that basis. It must look at the nature and seriousness of any likely reoffending. It makes that decision on that basis. If there was a high risk of reoffending or even a low risk of serious reoffending I would expect a conservative approach to be taken by the Parole Board. 
Tim Barnett 
: How does the level of guidance on the safety of the community contained in the Parole Act compare with the level of guidance in the legislation it replaced—namely the Criminal Justice Act? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Act is far more explicit in terms of the guidance it gives the Parole Board particularly in relation to the safety of the community and the question of undue risk. The safety of particular individuals in particular should not be compromised and the board is required to assess the likelihood of reoffending and the nature and seriousness of it. In contrast section 97 of the old Criminal Justice Act simply states that if “the Parole Board is of the opinion that the offender should be released on parole it may direct that the offender be released on parole accordingly”. There is absolutely no question about which law better protects the community. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER: 
 The member had not started asking his question. I am very grateful for the sake of another member that that is the case. That is the one warning. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister explain how parole prevents reoffending considering the Law and Order Committee heard this morning that for most people on parole it amounts to monthly contact with their parole officer? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Parole can set out special conditions as to where people live who they associate with where they work and particular requirements as to contact with the Community Probation Service. Very shortly of course there will be the ability over a longer term to subject a person to electronic monitoring. None of those things absolutely prevents reoffending but obviously they create the circumstances in which reoffending is less likely. 
Dail Jones 
: What responsibility does this labour Minister intend to take for an Act passed by the Labour Government that has obviously got it wrong again and again as in say the Isherwood and the Bell cases and what new legislation will he introduce to try to prevent these continuing Labour Party mistakes from taking place? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I draw to the member’s attention that in the many years that he was a member of the National Party and now a member of the New Zealand First Party the law under the Government of which he was a member was of course much less adequate than it is now. The law as it stands is much tougher. As the Justice and Electoral Committee heard this morning more people are going to jail and more people are going for longer. In the Bell case mentioned by the member that man has 30 years before parole can be considered—30 years in which he will never reoffend. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: With regard to parole does the Minister agree that keeping people in prison until the end of their sentence as advocated by the original questioner would reduce opportunities for managed reintegration into the community and therefore increase the likelihood of reoffending and does he have any estimate of how many prisons we would have to build in order to do that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I do have an estimate of what the policy promoted by the ACT party and perhaps the New Zealand First Party—and one never knows with the National Party—would cost. It would mean a trebling of the number of inmates we have in prison and a trebling of the cost. We would be talking over 10 years about a cost of up to $7 billion in extra costs in imprisonment. The ACT party is promising to do that on a low tax rate which would mean having to slash health and education to pay for more prisons which in itself would be counterproductive. 
Dail Jones 
: Has the Minister ever heard of the expression: “If you are going to do the crime you had better be ready to do the time.”; and is he saying the Labour Party does not support that type of principle? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member needs to understand that this country already has the second highest per capita rate of imprisonment in the Western World—the highest being the United States. This Government has not hesitated to be tougher when people needed to be kept in until the very end of their sentence. The “do nothing” National Party had 9 years to get it right but it did absolutely nothing. This Government has acted. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind the odd interjection but I have heard five in the second person from one member. That is a reference to me. The member had better get it correct next time. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why will the Minister not indicate what level of risk he considers “undue” when it is that level that determines how many more people will be beaten burgled robbed or raped and does he not realise that he has just told us that it could be a 10 20 or even 70 percent level of risk because he would rather spend money on yacht races than on prisons? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That last comment is obviously impossible to sustain. This latest Budget puts $1 billion into justice over the next 4 years. Nobody in this House wants anybody to be robbed beaten burgled or any of those other things. That is why I am proud to be part of a Government that has seen the crime rate come down by 13.8 percent since 1997 predominantly under this Government. 
Families Commission—Commencement 
2.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What progress has been made in ensuring that the new Families Commission will be up and running this year as she indicated in the Prime Minister’s statement in February 2004? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Good progress. Today I announced the appointments of the six commissioners for the Families Commission. They are Chief Families Commissioner Dr Rajen Prasad and his deputy Sharron Cole. Other commissioners are Professor Mason Durie Sandra Alofivae former human rights commissioner Carolynn Bull and long-time family advocate Lyn Campbell. The commissioners will bring a good variety of skills to their roles and we look forward to them starting their work on 1 July. I also thank United Future for its strong support and advocacy for the proposal. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that these commissioners are all well suited to the job not only because of the record they have of working on family issues in a professional capacity but also because of their own backgrounds reflecting those of middle New Zealand families? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree that the commissioners are all well suited to the job and bring a variety of family advocacy and governance skills to their roles. Dr Prasad for example who has been appointed the Chief Families Commissioner has excellent credentials across a wide range of areas and I think he and the fellow commissioners will form a very good team. 
Heather Roy 
: Will the Families Commission recognise civil unions in the same way that it recognises marriage; and has the United Future party indicated that it thinks the Civil Unions Bill will achieve the opposite of what it intended with the Families Commission? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question is not relevant but the first part can be answered. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the Families Commission has not yet formally begun its work it has not been able to form a view on such issues. What the chiefcommissioner said today was that the commission believes that families will define themselves by the fact that they care for children care for older people and care and nurture each other. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the work of the commissioners will focus on the needs of all New Zealand families not just those who could be considered at risk? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Most definitely. The commission will advocate for all our families—whatever their make-up—recognising that the family as an institution faces complex pressures in the 21st century. 
Police—Staffing 
3.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he consider the current staffing levels of both sworn and non-sworn police to be adequate; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Generally yes. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not true that despite all of the Minister’s claims that he is resolving staffing issues on 29 September 2002 a member of the Southern Communications Centre wrote to him expressing concerns about escalating workloads the lack of available units for dispatch and his frustration at not being able to dispatch a unit to an elderly lady in need of help despite the fact that he had seven highway patrol cars in the area that were specifically restricted only to issuing tickets? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The answer to the second part of the question is that highway patrols are not restricted to giving out tickets. The Southern Communications Centre has the staff it requires at the moment but the commissioner has put in additional funding this year and there will be more staff as they get trained later on this year. 
Brian Connell 
: Why when the Minister knew of the contents of the letter that Mr Mark referred to in which the writer clearly stated that the Southern Communications Centre was overstretched and that someone was going to get hurt has the Minister not done something about it; or does someone have to die before this Minister will be stung into action? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I can tell that member that the performance of the southern control centre has improved to near to or better than its target. Ninety percent of priority 1 events are dispatched within 2 minutes sick leave has halved since February and there were no occupational safety and health reports in March and April which is the latest information I have. I think the police are doing a great job and people are safer because of them. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: How do police staffing levels and resources compare between December 1999 when this Government took office and now? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: In December 1999 there was a total of 8767 police staff. The latest figure I have now shows a total of 9710. As well in that time technology has improved. For example police now identify people from crime scenes where DNA samples are found and collected in nearly 50 percent of those cases. Two hundred and eighty thousand palm prints have been added to the police computer matching system. It is expected that that will result in between 7000 and 10000 cases being resolved and I am hopeful that last year’s 43.7 percent resolution rate for crime which is a record will become even better in future. We are winning the war on crime. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What is the Minister doing to make better use of existing staff—for example in developing policies to ensure a more expanded and more consistent use of diversion as recommended by the Health Committee inquiry in order to reduce police time in court? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The commissioner and his staff are continually trying to improve their performance and they get support from this Government. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not usually raise these kinds of points of order but I am not sure whether the Minister addressed my question at all. I asked what the Minister was doing to make better use of existing staff and I gave an example that was a specific recommendation of a select committee. I am not sure whether the Minister addressed the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister may like to make a brief comment. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I said that the commissioner is always trying to get staff standards to improve. That is what he is doing and I support him in that. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister consider police front-line staffing levels to be limited by resource considerations or to be needs-based in response to current high crime levels; and if it is the latter then why are victims of burglary considered lucky if the police can actually attend to such crimes rather than being prioritised to higher-level offences? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I want to put the member right. Crime is in decline; it is dropping away. The rate of crime is on the way down. No matter how many times people get up here and ask questions that imply it is going up it is going down. If the member wants the official figures I will supply them to him. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister share New Zealand First’s view that it would be more effective and more efficient to split our police into two segments—general policing and traffic policing—along the lines being currently proposed in Britain; and if he does not agree with that is he saying that both New Zealand First and the British have got it wrong? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I would say that New Zealand First has got it wrong. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister addressed the question. The member cannot insist on every single thing in the question being addressed. The Minister addressed the question. 
Brian Connell 
: How does the Minister reconcile the answers he has given today with his acknowledgment at last week’s Law and Order Committee meeting that he knew the Southern Communications Centre was understaffed and overstretched and that 111 calls were being missed; and given that information why has the Minister not budgeted for more staff as he told the Law and Order Committee that he was going to do? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member has a short memory span. When I told him there were more on the way there were more on the way. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that in the last 5 years emergency calls to the police have increased by 50 percent whereas communications centre staffing has decreased by 2.11 percent and is he concerned by a report that states: “A 10-hour shift without regular breaks is detrimental to health especially to pregnant women dispatchers who cannot even find time to go to the toilet”; if he is concerned about that why did he not act on that correspondence which he received on 29 September 2002? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: One must first wonder why it took until now—halfway through 2004—for the member to raise the matter. However worse than that his facts are not correct. Ninety percent of priority 1 calls are dispatched within 2 minutes. It is interesting to note that the workload of the communications centres is changing. The Auckland communications centre has over 39 percent of its calls originate from cellphones dialling 555 because of traffic matters. 
Aquaculture—Maori Allocation 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Does the recent aquaculture proposal allow Maori to tender for aquaculture space from the general pool as well as being allocated a blanket 20 percent of new aquaculture space; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Yes this proposal does allow Maori to make their own business investment decisions in relation to marine farming in addition to the proposed allocation of 20 percent of new aquaculture space. Just as Maori individuals families companies or entities are able to purchase fisheries quota in addition to any allocation they are entitled to under the National Government - negotiated 1992 fisheries deed of settlement this Government will not constrain Maori business and economic development. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Do Ngati Awa of the Bay of Plenty have a preferential right to purchase up to 5 percent of further space and do Ngati Tama of Taranaki have a preferential right to purchase up to 10 percent as well as both being part of the blanket allocation and having the right to tender into the general pool; if so how does the Minister justify specific Maori entities having three bites of the cherry? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify this issue for the member. He is clearly referring to the provisions of some historical pre - September 1992 treaty settlements where as one of the forms of redress iwi have been provided with a right of first refusal to up to 10 percent in some cases of coastal space that is tendered. This is a preferential right to purchase up to a certain proportion rather than an allocation as such. Maori are required to purchase the authorisation at market price and are not provided with additional money to do so. The provision for example in the NgaiTahu settlement is contained in schedule 105 of the NgaiTahu Claims Settlement Act. I would be pleased to provide the member with a copy if he wishes one. The NgaiTahu settlement was of course negotiated by the National Government. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is the Minister’s newly announced proposal a way forward for the aquaculture industry and is it a response to the unfinished business of any previous Government? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. This proposal does present a way forward for the aquaculture industry and I must say I fully agree with the editor of the Christchurch  
Press 
 when he said on 19 June: “The criticism from National is especially hollow given its record. In essence the present aquaculture proposal mirrors the 1992 Maori fisheries settlement … Indeed aquaculture might be regarded as the unfinished business of 1992.” The quote continues: “Even as National’s current Maori Affairs spokesman Gerry Brownlee is condemning the Government Graham is saying that the marine farming plans are in line with the 1992 settlement.” 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that the Opposition claim that the 20 percent is a foreshore-seabed trade-off is completely ridiculous when no person Maori or Pakeha would willingly exchange property rights for a convoluted Resource Management Act consent and plan-change process—through traditionally hostile local authorities—for extremely limited marine space for a restricted period of time and for which he or she must then pay coastal occupation charges which is hardly a fair trade-off? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is an assertion about another party’s policy and the Minister has no direct responsibility for that policy. The member did not word the question in accordance with the Standing Orders. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I have the opportunity to reword the question so that it fits within the Standing Orders? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to use up another question to do so she can. I will allow her to do that. However that is another question she is asking. I will let her do it straightaway. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What role did Trevor Mallard the Coordinating Minister Race Relations play over the allocation issue; and has the Minister of Fisheries received written advice from Minister Mallard over the impact of a 20 percent special allocation to Maori? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I made it clear to the questioner in my answer yesterday that the issues he raised would clearly be addressed as part of that process and I can only stress that no formal final Cabinet position has yet been achieved in that regard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the Government’s foreshore and seabed proposals where Maori have ancestral-connection orders to the coastline they have a veto opportunity on areas for marine aquaculture; and that the only way the Government can be certain that the industry will expand is to create an incentive for those areas to be large by ensuring that Maori get 20 percent of them? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as that question directly refers to the Minister’s portfolio the Minister can respond. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have no responsibility for that legislation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister about areas that are for marine farming. The Government has made a big play in recent days of saying that it wants to progress the 20 percent allocation to Maori so the industry itself can progress. For the Minister to suggest he has no knowledge of or responsibility as a Minister for legislation that will materially affect his own portfolio is at the least a stretch. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the Minister’s answer. If he says that that is his answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well he is obviously incompetent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member cannot make that sort of comment. I think that denigrates Parliament. I ask the member to withdraw that comment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How many times have people in this Parliament referred to Ministers as being incompetent and not had to withdraw their references? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not on a point of order. As far as I am concerned on a point of order that comment is inappropriate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to draw to your attention that my colleague’s question was in respect of the ancestral-connection changes to the Resource Management Act. Of course the Minister concerned is not only the Minister of Fisheries but also the Associate Minister for the Environment responsible for the very issue that my colleague Mr Brownlee raises with regard to aquaculture and the ancestral-connection amendments to the Resource Management Act. I think it is reasonable that the deputy leader of the National Party obtains a response to that very reasonable question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Ministers often hold more than one portfolio but the question is addressed to them only within the portfolio that question relates to. Someone cannot ask me as the Minister of Finance a question about my duties as Leader of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot second-guess Ministers’ replies. That is not my job. My job is to see that a reply is within the Standing Orders and it was. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister inform the House whether there was ever any discussion or any report relating to the matter of the 20 percent allocation that mentioned considerations around the seabed and foreshore legislation and its effects? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Certainly not that I am aware of at this point. 
Nuclear-free New Zealand—Ship Visits 
5.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Has he received any reports relating to the legislation prohibiting nuclear-powered ships visiting New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I have seen two reports. One from late yesterday suggested that a proposal to have the ban on nuclear ships removed “before lunchtime” had been abandoned by the National caucus and that at least publicly there would be no further proposals to do so—at least not before the election. The other report however is interesting. A poll by TV3 shows that 54 percent of New Zealanders do not believe that the National Party is sincere about keeping nuclear ships out. Basically New Zealanders do not believe that National can be trusted. All these reports show that this whole affair has been a shambles for the National Party and a deep embarrassment for Dr Brash personally. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any reports from New Zealand’s allies and friends expressing their views on how this issue has been handled? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen a somewhat unusual report from my Australian colleague the Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in May at the time of the New Zealand – Australian leadership dialogue. It expressed his frustration at the National Party raising expectations that there would be changes to the legislation but unlike Labour not having the courage of its convictions to carry them through. I have not seen any reports on whether Dr Brash in his recent meetings with Mr Downer or Mr Armitage privately promised that the ban would be removed “before lunchtime” or said it might now take a little bit longer to do that. 
Dail Jones 
: Has the Minister read any reports confirming that any changes to legislation prohibiting nuclear-powered warships from visiting New Zealand and other major constitutional changes should be decided by referendum as required by current New Zealand First policy; if so from whom? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It has been suggested by the National Party that it would decide this issue by a referendum at an appropriate time and of course after particular manipulation of public opinion—and certainly after the election. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister received any proposals from the Leader of the Opposition to move the New Zealand seat of Government closer to Washington DC in order more easily to assess United States’ reactions to New Zealand policy proposals? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility there. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked whether the Minister had received any proposals from the Leader of the Opposition. Surely it must be the Minister’s responsibility to consider whether he has received such a proposal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he is not responsible for the seat of Government. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is he opposed to holding a referendum to gauge the level of support in New Zealand for dropping the ban on nuclear propulsion; if so can he envisage any circumstances in which this ban might be dropped? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The referendum that determined this Government’s policy was the last election when it made an unequivocal statement that it supported the continuation of the ban on nuclear ships. Not only did we do that but since 1987 polls have consistently shown that two-thirds of New Zealanders are opposed to nuclear-propelled ships—that they are two to one in favour of keeping New Zealand nuclear-free. There is no doubt that this Government will do that; there is every doubt about what the National Party lacking any conviction on this issue might do if it got the chance. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders are very clear that Ministers’ replies must be succinct. All that the Minister had to say in answer to my question was “No”. Instead he prattled on for about 30 seconds in effect clearly saying “No” but he was not prepared actually to get up answer the question and say that no he was not prepared to have a referendum. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I were actually able to suggest to questioners and answerers that they keep their questions and answers succinct question time would be over in about 20 minutes. I do like answers to be succinct but I think members who ask long questions will get long answers and the member’s question was quite a long one. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister received any advice from any official of the current or prior United States administrations that repeal of New Zealand’s antinuclear legislation is a precondition for any form of improved relationship with the United States on the economic front? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Most certainly I have received no advice from any American official that changing our nuclear policy which is surely a matter for us as an independent and sovereign country is a prerequisite for any changes in trade policy or any other policy the United States might pursue in our regard. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Have any recent events given the Minister cause to reconsider the Government’s policy on nuclear ships notwithstanding what he mentioned in a previous answer? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. To the contrary this Government has taken a firm principled and consistent position with regard to the nuclear ban and is backed overwhelmingly by New Zealanders for so doing. To prevaricate to be indecisive to be lacking in conviction and to try to have a bob each way is incredibly damaging to any party which is why the National caucus told Don Brash yesterday to pull his head in and to say he would not change the policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part of that answer is supposition and should not have been part of the answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table statements made by the Minister for Trade Negotiations Jim Sutton that New Zealand needed to revisit its nuclear-free policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I seek leave to table a quote from Don Brash that states: “The likelihood is that if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable and that of course would be after we became Government we would then seek a referendum.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—Monitoring of Critically Ill Child  
6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 on behalf of  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she stand by her response to question 9 yesterday that the two other children taken into care were not subject to physical or sexual abuse and what was the specific nature of the “detrimental living environment” the mother was in at the time the children were removed from her care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I do stand by my response yesterday that the baby’s mother did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children. Because of the need to protect the children and because I have been advised that discussion of such information could adversely affect the police work currently under way I am not prepared to disclose further details. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has this Minister told the Parliament that there was no physical abuse when one of the two children who was taken into care at age 2 was so starved by its mother that it weighed less than 9 kilograms was unable to walk stand or talk and was in such a severe state of decline? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I stand by my response yesterday that there was no history of physical or sexual abuse of her own children by the woman in Tauranga who is the centre of the allegations currently. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What factors are considered when assessing the risk for a child? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Department of Child Youth and Family Services social workers take into account a large number of factors when assessing the level of risk to a child or young person. This includes but is not limited to past reports of violence a family’s financial situation drug and alcohol abuse transients degree of attachment and bonding and the degree of support available to the family. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: On what date did the Minister first learn that the mother had starved one of her first two children and why did she use the phrase “a detrimental living environment” as a euphemism for starvation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The first time I heard that phrase referred to was when Tony Ryall used it in his supplementary question. The reason I used the term “a detrimental living environment” is because that is exactly what the report on this family reported to me. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister continue to ignore the proposal of United Future to introduce a differential intake model whereby vulnerable families like this one would be knitted into a range of community services they need considering that yesterday she admitted in her answers that there is simply not enough strength in the department to help parents who have had children removed into statutory care and that better engagement with other social service agencies is needed? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do agree with the member and that is why that is a primary focus of the new family services unit being developed within the Ministry of Social Development because it was considered more appropriate for that department to lead it rather than the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. I also strongly support the view of that member that supporting parents who are not coping and who ask for help should themselves be supported by members of Parliament and not attacked and labelled as failures. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the way her department has handled this case and has she asked the Commissioner for Children to review the handling of this situation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: On the advice I have yes and in answer to the second part of the question no. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If there was no physical abuse of the two children and in light of the circumstances that I told the Minister about earlier why did she lead the House to believe that the child was removed because of some environmental factor affecting the mother when the police who took these children to safety reported that one of them was covered in urine and faeces and that these children were removed because of their state not because of the condition the mother was living in? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have not been advised of that before. I will rely on the honesty of the member and I will certainly have those new allegations followed up. 
Food Labelling—Content and Origin 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Is it Government policy that New Zealanders have the right to know what is in the food they eat and where it comes from; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 It is Government policy to ensure that the food New Zealanders eat is safe and to provide as much consumer information as is practicable. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why is the Minister’s Government actively opposing mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food despite widespread public support for it and why is it stating in international forums like Codex that New Zealand opposes country-of-origin labelling on imported food being dated and will not support any move towards mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First this Government is not actively campaigning against country-of-origin labelling. However a standard is being drawn up by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and is being consulted on at this time but we have made it clear and have made it clear for many years that our position on this issue has not changed. Our position is that country-of-origin labelling is a commercial issue that it is best dealt with by fair trading and trade practice laws and that we support a voluntary system of country-of-origin labelling. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has she seen any reports that claim New Zealand “is on the verge of importing nuked food for the first time.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have seen the Green Party’s website which claims that we are on the verge of importing “nuked food” for the first time when the truth is that we have had imported irradiated spices for several years. The difference today is that this Government requires such food to be labelled. I think New Zealanders have the right to know the truth. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can she confirm that the Fair Trading Act does not require manufacturers to state where food comes from and given that New Zealanders eat a greater proportion of imported food than most OECD countries why is the Government which presents itself as being open and honest denying consumers their right to know where food comes from? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Fair Trading Act does not require manufacturers to say where food comes from but it is a mechanism to ensure that people are truthful in anything they do say. I note that the member herself made a complaint under the Fair Trading Act when she decided that someone was making a deceitful claim in selling imported food so obviously the member thought it was a good-enough vehicle to use. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has she seen any reports that claim that free-range food is best? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have seen a report on the Green Party website claiming that animals reared intensively are often contaminated with diseases such as campylobacter and salmonella. There is no evidence to support this claim. There is actually a higher incidence of salmonella in free-range eggs than in eggs that are battery-farmed. I think New Zealanders have a right to know the truth. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can she explain why the Government supports mandatory country-of-origin labelling for footwear and clothing but not for food especially when mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food would make it easier to recall potentially contaminated food help prevent bioterrorism protect public health and safety and help consumers make informed choices about food they buy or reasons why the Australian states support mandatory country-of-origin labelling? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can inform the member—and I will read from the joint communiqué that comes from Australia and New Zealand— that the issue of country-of-origin labelling “is not a public health or safety issue. The safety of the food supply is assured by other means.” So the member is incorrect in her assumptions. 
Sue Kedgley 
: If the majority of New Zealanders support the Food Standards Australia New Zealand proposal for a mandatory joint food standard for country-of-origin labelling of food which is presently out for consultation will the Government support the joint standard for mandatory country-of-origin labelling; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government will consider the submissions made to Food Standards Australia New Zealand when we receive them. I suspect however that the majority of New Zealanders will not make submissions. 
Business—Incubator Scheme 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What progress has been made with the Government’s business incubator scheme over recent years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 The scheme has been a stunning success. When this Government came to office there was one incubator. As of now there are more than a dozen up and running or planned and the Prime Minister opened an extension of one in Wellington last night. Between them these incubators cater for over 100 businesses and those businesses on average increased their turnover by 228 percent in the last 12 months. 
David Parker 
: What is being done to invest further in this scheme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government is delighted with progress within this scheme. It continues to invest in the success that the scheme is delivering. Funding increased in the last Budget to $2.7 million up 50 percent on last year. The National Party continues to oppose the scheme. National members simply do not get it. They call it corporate welfarism. 
Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology—Enrolment Incentives 
9.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House on 6 May 2004 that in relation to spending on enrolment incentives by Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology “I am informed by officials that the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology spent $80000 in total on book vouchers. That was largely $20 plus GST for each person who was involved.”; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Acting Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I stand by the Hon Steve Maharey’s statement. The Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology advised officials that the figure for book vouchers for students enrolling in the Cool IT course was approximately $80000 excluding GST. The exact figure I understand was $83284 excluding GST. More recently a figure has been quoted in the media of $311693 including GST. That figure is different because it also includes separate but related initiatives whereby schools and other community groups earned $20 per student for promoting the Cool IT programme. The Hon Steve Maharey has already indicated that changes to the funding rules will mean that in future it is not possible to offer inducements to students for publicly funded courses regardless of how these are paid for. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that she is now aware that a further almost $200000 was spent on inducements and why did the Minister not advise the Parliament that that was the case when at the time he had a report from the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology outlining those figures? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I assume that the honourable member does not mean $200000 in addition to the $311693? 
Hon Bill English 
: No. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: OK. I am sorry I cannot confirm that the Hon Steve Maharey did have a report on that at the time but I am happy to find that out and let the member know. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Tertiary Education Commission undertaken a review of the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology’s Cool IT course? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. The purpose of that review was to establish the extent of the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology compliance with funding regulations and broader elements of Government policy. That review was commenced on 25 May. I have now had an opportunity to consult with officials and confirm that this report will be made public when finalised. Deloitte’s draft was delivered to the Tertiary Education Commission on Friday 18 June. The commission is consulting for factual accuracy with those persons mentioned in the report and once that has taken place then the report will be available. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Was the reason that officials from the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit took no action when information was received about the relationship in this case between a Christchurch Polytechnic staff member and Brylton Software that firstly they did not believe the relationship to be inappropriate or secondly they believed the relationship to be inappropriate but it was not their job to do anything about it? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit has no audit powers or functions—that is correct. That is why it did not take formal action at the time. But I understand that it did in fact convey to the polytech that it had to abide by the proper processes and procedures. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that the Minister has established that the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology spent almost $300000 on inducements and broke the Government rules against providing inducements for enrolment when will she take up the offer that the polytech has made to repay the money to the Government? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think it would be wise to wait for the reports to come in before one makes the assumption that there has in fact been a breach of the rules. 
Psychiatric Institutions—Abuse 
10.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will she be ordering an inquiry into claims of serious abuse at psychiatric institutions during the 1960s and 1970s; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Until the Crown has completed its investigation no decision can be made on whether to hold an inquiry. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not believe that the serious allegations including physical and sexual abuse long periods of solitary confinement and the use of electroconvulsive therapy as punishment are not in themselves enough to warrant a full and proper inquiry by this Government as of now? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government takes the allegations very seriously and that is why they are being thoroughly investigated. However that will take some time because many of them go back over 30 years. 
Darren Hughes 
: When does the Attorney-General expect the investigations to be concluded? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Crown is investigating these matters as quickly as possible and I have in fact instructed that more staff be applied to the investigation process. However the difficulties are that records from over 30 years ago have to be found. Once found they have to be assessed. Witnesses who are alleged to have been involved in these instances also have to be found and interviewed. There is also a variety of other processes about practices and about what medical treatment was appropriate at that time that also have to be investigated. But I do assure the House that we are taking the allegations very seriously. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does the Minister believe that the level of abuse in psychiatric institutions during the 1960s and 1970s was one of the reasons deinstitutionalisation was promoted so strongly but that deinstitutionalisation has now gone too far leading to our high suicide rate and leaving families to cope with the tragedy of dealing with mental illness often unsupported? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think that question calls for an opinion that is outside my expertise. It does relate to the management of mental institutions at this time and I have no knowledge of that. However I will say that in 1969 there was an investigation into allegations at Porirua and they were found not to be substantiated. 
Ron Mark 
: What was the level of support both financial and physical afforded by the State to Bailey Kurariki and the other youths who killed Michael Choy and does she not believe that the child victims of psychiatric care and abuse in the 1960s and 1970s are deserving of the very same degree of assistance in order to allow them to press their cases against the Crown? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I have no knowledge as to whether legal aid has been sought on behalf of these claimants but that would certainly be a source of assistance for them. 
Holidays Act—Surcharges 
11.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: Does he stand by his comment that surcharges charged by hospitality operators on public holidays are “short-sighted” and send the wrong message to tourists; if so what advice has he offered to the Minister of Labour on this issue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Tourism 
: Yes. The Minister of Labour does not need the advice of the Minister of Tourism on that matter. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Did the Minister raise those concerns with the Minister of Labour when the Holidays Bill was being considered by Cabinet or afterwards when it was in front of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee given the fact that the hospitality industry was warning that it would be forced to raise prices by about 15 percent on public holidays as a result of this Government’s legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the Minister has clearly stated his support for incorporating any extra costs where they belong in overall charges. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has the Minister received on the use of surcharges in the tourism industry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN:  
Consistent with my own advice the chief executive of the Tourism Industry Association is reported as saying: “Our advice was for people to average it out and put up prices generally—average out across the year and not make a feast out of it.” 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer does the Minister concur that it would be much easier and more straightforward if the industry was allowed to pay people on a composite rate whereby it could easily average the cost out and avoid the surcharge? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister is not responsible for the labour laws. I do note that when penal rates were abolished the charges on public holidays did not go down. 
Deborah Coddington 
: What is the total cost to the hospitality industry of the new Holidays Act provision or has the Minister not bothered to find that out? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have that information in front of me and I doubt whether it is able to be supplied in any precise form. 
Larry Baldock 
: Why does the Minister seem to be so surprised that hospitality operators are imposing surcharges on public holidays when they warned the Government that this would happen in their submissions on the Holidays Bill; and does he think it is better that those businesses charge more and stay open on a holiday rather than close and not only deny workers an opportunity to earn extra money but also give tourists the impression that the country has gone back to the days when it used to close down at the weekend? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the latter point that is a very long time ago now in New Zealand. I repeat that when penal rates were abolished the charges on public holidays did not go down so presumably people in the industry were actually averaging the costs out across the year. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Has the Minister of Tourism read the submissions opposing the changes to the Employment Relations Act from the Tourism Industry Association the Hospitality Association and Shotover Jet which state that the further change to the labour laws will further increase prices; and does he intend that those operators should simply absorb the costs that are being imposed on them by the Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Obviously I am not aware of whether the Minister has actually read that. But I am sure he would have; he is a very well-read Minister. The Minister’s view is that the cost should have been absorbed in terms of increases across the year as it was previously. If the hospitality industry were to vary its charges on an hourly basis according to the actual costs each hour one would never know quite what one would be paying. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: How much does the Minister think prices should go up by to absorb this cost across the whole year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Very little given the small number of public holidays in New Zealand. 
Tourism—Cultural Destination 
12.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: Has he received any reports on marketing New Zealand as a cultural tourism destination? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Associate Minister of Tourism) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Tourism 
: Last month  
The Rough Guide to Maori New Zealand  
was launched. It is a wonderful way of showing our visitors the diversity of the cultural experience available in New Zealand and in particular of informing them about our unique Maori culture. There have been 165000 copies delivered through the  
Daily Telegraph 
 in the United Kingdom. The Government Tourism New Zealand Rough Guides the National Maori Tourism Network Air New Zealand and Tailor Made Travel UK have worked together to prepare and fund  
The Rough Guide to Maori New Zealand 
. I wish to congratulate all those parties involved in this exciting and very interesting publication. 
I suggest that many members of this House could very well benefit from reading it. The Minister of Tourism and I will ensure that every member of this House receives a copy of this excellent and informative publication. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other initiatives has the Government taken to enhance cultural tourism? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: A highly successful round of hui was held recently by me to canvass the issues facing Maori tourism operators. These hui have been invaluable in strengthening a cooperative working relationship between Maori tourism operators and the Government as well as providing first-hand information and input into our policy initiatives. As the Maori tourism sector grows in strength both the tourism industry as a whole and the New Zealand economy will reap the benefits. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
I seek leave to table the publication  
The Rough Guide to Maori New Zealand: Discover the Land and the People of Aotearoa 
. I would suggest if members on the other side want any more copies they give me a call. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Debates 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. We can see the glum faces of the Labour back-benchers as they reflect on another day of very poor performance by their ministry team. Today perhaps more than ever before we witnessed the timid incompetence of the Labour ministry with the reciting of new answers to question time. For weeks months and even years this Government has evaded answering questions in this House. It has Ministers who have been timid about their Government’s policy and Ministers who have to say the least been economical with the truth. 
So they have had the media advisers in—a big cheque written for Brian Edwards and his mates—and have said: “Give us some new ways of not answering questions.” So we have the great phrases: “Generally yes.” and “Generally no.” Today I think Mr Benson-Pope had a new one: “I am not aware of it at this point.” Then there was the classic from Margaret Wilson who said: “Goodness me they are different figures.” 
Finally from Ruth Dyson we had perhaps the worst answer ever given by a Minister when confronted with her own incompetence. When asked to comment on the appalling treatment of two children in this country she simply said: “I did not know until now.” Well a couple of days ago that Minister was quite capable of answering categorically that those children had not been in any danger and that the mother had been perfectly competent. Then when we came here today and Tony Ryall was able to expose the truth of the sordid environment that those children were subjected to what did we get from the Minister? She said: “I did not know until now.” 
This is a Government that has its hand off the rudder. It is a Government that is going the wrong way. Just to emphasise how out of touch it is with New Zealanders members should look at what it is proposing over this new marine farming allocation to Maori. It is all about the enormous problem the Government has created with theForeshore and Seabed Bill. Under that bill the Government has allowed Maori to have absolute veto over coastal areas right out to the territorial limit where ancestral connection is established. The Prime Minister has told us that that will include most of this country’s coastline so if we want to get new areas of sea space for marine farming Maori have to approve it. The best way to ensure we have lots of space is to give Maori a chunk of it—in this case 20 percent. The more Maori approve the more they get. That is why we are seeing the unwinding of the 1992 fisheries settlement by this Government. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: No it pre-dates it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Hodgson can sit there and shake his head but if he would like to read section 5(1) of that settlement it reads that this settlement: “shall discharge and extinguish all commercial fishing rights and interests of Maori whether in respect of sea coastal or inland fisheries (including any commercial aspect of traditional fishing rights and interests) whether arising by statute common law (including customary law and aboriginal title) the Treaty of Waitangi or otherwise”. 
That is just set aside for the expedience of keeping a Labour Government sweet with the Maori electorate. It is that type of behaviour—that lack of leadership—that will see the worst fears of all those Labour back-benchers come true. My advice to them is to get up to their offices get out of Parliament and start flashing their CVs up because in their tens they will be looking for jobs very shortly. 
There is no problem with sorting out the issues of aquaculture once the moratorium is lifted. Maori are already very big players in this industry. The moratorium stopped Maori dead in their tracks. Forty percent of the applications held up belong to them. It is a nonsense and this Government will pay the price for it. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 At 12.15 today the Hon Peter Dunne and the Prime Minister jointly announced the appointment of commissioners to the Families Commission. The independent appointments committee has professionally scrutinised the large number of high-calibre applicants and has interviewed those who made it on to its shortlist. Those appointed are well known for their commitment to New Zealand children and their families. Over the next few weeks they will advertise for and employ the essential support staff and begin to map out a strategy for the establishment phase of the commission. I expect the commission will be inundated with approaches from the many stakeholders that serve the interests of families and have demonstrated huge interest and support for this commission. Government departments academics research agencies social service providers parent educators family health experts and family law practitioners will all want to be consulted and to offer advice on the shape and content of the strategic plan and want to help to identify the key questions that the commission’s research dollars should address. This is exactly how it should be—a commission charged with the task of learning all that it can about both the health and pathology of family environments so that it can supply the Government and community agencies with the information they need in order to better target families with the initiatives they really need. 
If I could design a marketing brand for our nation it would not be “nuclear-free New Zealand” or “clean green” or “business-friendly”—although those slogans all have merit. I would go for a byline that pulled all those ideas together and clearly stated what United Future believes Kiwis really want. It is as simple as this: that New Zealand should be and can be the best place in the world to raise a family. But for that to be a reality we have to look beyond the current emphasis on the well-being of individuals and to start asking ourselves hard questions like those about the factors that contribute to the best long-term interests of children and their families. Put simply we must move beyond merely responding to the current crises faced by many New Zealand families and we need to build capacity as a nation. The Families Commission is the body that will be able to put all the pieces of the jigsaw together and reveal a picture of the processes that occur within families and in the interaction of the family with the broader social economic political and cultural environment that is New Zealand. With the picture made clearer Governments and communities can be much more responsive to the real needs of families. Sustainable changes in family outcomes often take a generation or two to reach fruition and that is why it is essential that a core concern of the commission will be to articulate and advocate for the crucial role that families play in the development and socialisation of children. The family environment and experiences combine with the impact of childcare schools media and neighbourhoods to shape the next generation of New Zealanders. 
I would like to congratulate those named today as Families Commissioners. Chief Families Commissioner Dr Rajen Prasad is well known for his former role as Race Relations Conciliator. Dr Prasad has extensive professional experience in family and social work and in research into family issues and has a strong background in the governance and management of public and educational organisations. Deputy Chief Families Commissioner Sharron Cole has been actively involved in Parents Centre. She is a bioethics researcher has been an elected member of the Hutt District Health Board and serves as an adviser on a number of health-related committees. Psychiatrist Professor Mason Durie has specialised in community psychiatry family therapy and family health issues. He is currently professor of Maori research and development at Massey University. Legal expert Sandra Alofivae has a background in family and youth law and 20 years’ experience of voluntary and community service with a particular emphasis on education for families and communities in south Auckland. Former human rights commissioner Carolynn Bull is a senior family law practitioner in Christchurch and long-time family advocate Lyn Campbell has been the Christchurch City Council’s child advocate with extensive experience in leading and advising on various family and community initiatives. 
I believe that New Zealand can reclaim what has been lost and once again be the best place in the world to raise a family in and I am confident that those commissioners will provide the balance and skills needed to make their mark in the history of this country as the commissioners who took up the challenge of making that goal a reality. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Climate change is happening. While a tiny minority of scientific opinion may dispute whether the build-up of greenhouse gases and the overheating of our planet are our fault overwhelmingly the evidence is clear—it is us. It is the behaviour of people like us that has been responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million prior to the industrial revolution to around 375 parts per million now. Globally the future is bleak. Unless we can effect an enormous and a rapid shift in human behaviour global warming and energy water and food shortages combined with burgeoning populations will pose unprecedented threats to world peace and political stability as well as cataclysmic environmental consequences. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Ha ha! 
MIKE WARD 
: The member may laugh about it. Here at the bottom of the Pacific we may be better placed to survive global warming than people elsewhere in the world but it will not be possible to isolate ourselves from the global consequences of it. The local climatic consequences are already evident and inescapable. 
The last time I spoke about these issues in the House it was clear some members thought I was overstating the case. I said then and I repeat now that wishful thinking—and I add blind faith in a merciful God or in human ingenuity—is no substitute for hard evidence. Nobody can be sure of the exact consequences of climate change but we need only to look at the consequences to date and extrapolate from there. If a 30 percent increase in carbon dioxide has resulted in the planet experiencing since 1990 the 10 warmest years on record—June July and August 2003 being the hottest months in Western and Central Europe and the UK alone experiencing for the first time temperatures in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit—then one does not have to be terribly imaginative to work out that something like a doubling in carbon dioxide levels in this century will present unimaginable consequences. The floods the droughts the desertification and the extreme weather events are likely to overwhelm us. 
What must we do? If ever there was a time for a cross-party accord—the equivalent of an all-Parliament wartime-type Cabinet—now is that time. There has never been such a need for cooperation in this place. If we are serious about our commitment to preserving peace and tranquillity—and we talk about it every time we come into this Chamber—then we need most urgently to begin to work together. To date we have focused on perpetuating the unsustainable and the absurd. We have spent vast fortunes on enabling people to live too far from where they need to be to access food and stuff from all over the planet and to bury my children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance in expensive holes in the ground. We are destroying our future and undermining the quality of our present. Our global responsibilities and our local needs are one and the same. We must put in place the infrastructure to enable a rapid reduction in our fossil fuel use. Passive solar energy for heating our spaces and our water would result in more comfortable houses and more efficient industry and would lower our energy bills. Investment in rail and in a marketing campaign to persuade people to live closer to the places where they work play shop and go to school and to source their needs locally could dramatically reduce our energy demands avoid some of the impacts of burgeoning fuel prices begin to meet our Kyoto commitments and create safer and healthier communities. 
In short consumerism is killing us. We have never worked longer or harder. Although some of us have no jobs and suffer the worst kind of poverty—that is poverty in the midst of plenty—too many of us have too much and work too hard. New Zealanders do not need to produce or consume more but we do need to share the work and the time and we do need to make sure that we spend more of our money on the things we really need. We need to make sure that those things are made to last and made by the people around us so that we restore the welfare of our community and reduce the energy component of our possessions and our food. We need to change our behaviour not by creating new rules but by persuading people that the choice is between learning to live within the capacity of the planet to sustain or consuming away our children’s future. 
I like to think that this country and its people have the ability to demonstrate a different way of doing things. We can wait until the consequences of our behaviour are inescapable and irreversible and the population is baying for our blood or we can demonstrate a new measure of integrity and leadership. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The National Party's—and in particular Don Brash’s—handling of the nuclear issue has been incredibly damaging to the Leader of the Opposition’s reputation and to the National Party itself. When can anyone in this House recall such fumbling indecision or such a series of flip-flops? First of all Don Brash said he was in favour of the Somers report because it was logical. Then he was in favour of the Creech report; the Creech report was the way forward. Then he said to the Americans that the ban would be gone by lunchtime. And now tail between his legs he has crawled back into his hole saying that there will be no change to the nuclear policy—leastwise the National Party will not publicly talk about it before the election. 
My challenge to the National Party is to ask why when it has a conviction on an issue it cannot show the courage of its convictions. Why does National not acknowledge its stand on that issue? Why does it not come out of the closet and say yes it is in favour of nuclear-propelled ships coming to our harbours? Why does National not show that it has a series of principles and policies that it believes in? I will give Mr Hide the prediction that the back-down by Don Brash—the failure to stand up for the policy he promoted just a matter of weeks ago—is ACT’s big chance to get back into the electoral race. The National Party is showing once more that it has no policy—or that it has a policy for everybody. Regardless of what that policy is National will deliver—no policy; every policy. Nobody believes any more that the National Party has a platform on which to take this country forward. That is the real damage it has done. Did the flip-flop happen because the National Party does not have conviction in what it believes or was it simply because it cannot make a hard decision? That is another explanation for National’s change of policy. If National’s members cannot make a hard decision what are they doing in this Chamber pretending that they can lead this country? 
I predict that the National members cannot make a decision on that issue. They are divided; they are all over the place. Simon Power sits there on the Opposition benches. He has told the country that decisions should not be made in New Zealand but in Washington in Canberra and in London—anywhere but in Wellington. For God’s sake he says we should not have the courage of our convictions exercise our judgment or have our own values! Simon Power is prepared to pass all those things overseas—as indeed is Nick Smith. Nick Smith will have a policy on Kyoto if Australia and the United States do but he will not if they do not. Now there is a man of conviction and there is a party of conviction—we really do know what they believe in! 
If the purpose of the exercise in raising the nuclear issue was to improve relations with Australia and the United States as Don Brash has said on many occasions then the National Party has done just the opposite of that. National is a laughing stock in Washington and in Canberra. When one is Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade one is meant to be diplomatic— 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Mr Goff appears in his speech to be claiming knowledge of the subject that has probably come from diplomats’ reports. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 45/1 which states that “diplomats’ views must not be used to influence debate.” 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am prepared to table what I am quoting from. It is actually the lead article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Australia snipes at NZ nuclear ban” in which Alexander Downer— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. That is perfectly acceptable and the Minister can ask to table that page at the end of his speech. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In an astonishing departure from his normal diplomatic style of not criticising the internal policies of other parties and other countries Alexander Downer absolutely panned the National Party. He said that it creates expectations reneges and never delivers. What did he say about Labour? He said that he could understand Labour’s policy because: “It was an article of faith.” It was something Labour believed in. There was no such excuse for the National Party. National Party members just did not have it in them to stand up for what they believed and that is why I say they are a laughing stock in Canberra. They are not believed in Canberra or in Washington. Thank God they will never be the Government of this country. 
If that latest back-down was designed to reassure the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who on principle are against nuclear-propelled ships coming here then it will have no such effect. The TV3 poll showed quite clearly that overwhelmingly New Zealanders do not believe the National Party is sincere in its back-down. Instead they believe what Don Brash told the Americans in private. What sort of a leader goes around telling New Zealanders one thing—solemn sincere pledges that his party had made no decision—after he has told the Americans in private that the ban would be “gone by lunchtime”? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 On 16 October 2001 Winston Peters the leader of the New Zealand First Party issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incompetence in fisheries. Heads need to roll.” He was calling for a dismissal of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries and he claimed that the ministry was guilty of gross incompetence faulty allocation of scampi quota wanton disregard for due process and unlawful treatment of fishers. He called on the Minister of Fisheries to invoke an immediate inquiry. He said that the allocation of scampi was to be taken away from the ministry as it could not be trusted. Those were very serious allegations and some even called them reckless. It was classic Winston Peters innuendo. 
Six months later on 24 April 2002 in the general debate—this very debate we are having now—Winston Peters lambasted the Minister of Fisheries for not taking action. He accused the Ministry of Fisheries of condoning corruption aiding and abetting corruption and involving itself in that corruption. Winston Peters said: “I will produce evidence that the ministry knowingly condonedthat corruption.” He went on further to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demonstrate with voluminous evidence and affidavits why this ministry should be removed from its job and the Serious Fraud Office asked belatedly to do its job.” 
Eventually a parliamentary inquiry into the scampi allegations was instigated by the Primary Production Committee following a very high-profile  
Assignment  
programme that screened on television. One would have expected Winston Peters having made those allegations to rejoice at having got that inquiry but oh no he gave not a whisper not a murmur. He quickly replaced Doug Woolerton the permanent New Zealand First member on that select committee and then spent his time focusing on narrowing and closing the terms of reference for the committee. It was all one would say rather curious. 
The Primary Production Committee sat for several months consumed an enormous amount of Parliament’s time and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support the reckless allegations he had made and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb with barely a whisper. 
Last night on television further allegations were made and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this Parliament and its processes was raised and the programme focused on a former member of this House—perhaps one of the most unsavoury members who has passed through this House—a Mr Ross Meurant. 
 It seems that a former member of Parliament Ross Meurant was engaged by Simunovich Fisheries as an adviser and lobbyist. Concurrent with that of course—and a lot of people do not realise this—Mr Meurant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its payroll; actually on the taxpayers’ payroll through the Parliamentary Service. 
We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings together with principals of Simunovich Fisheries. Mr Meurant’s former partner of some 9 years Yvonne Theresa Dossetter swears that Ross Meurant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal and the proposal was put that the payment of $300000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Simunovich business. It is alleged that the deed was done and that the money would be available from an Australian bank account. Subsequently it is alleged that Mr Meurant boasted to Yvonne Dosseter who has sworn an affidavit that the money was paid and that Meurant indeed had it in a brown paper bag. 
This is an extremely serious allegation and it brings into question in the public’s mind the functioning of our representative democracy. What we have to realise is that Winston Peters was in there with him. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 With that serious and considered debate from the Hon Ken Shirley we see now why the ACT party has made such a mistake with its change of leadership. It had a choice of having someone with brains someone who could make a case someone who could front up when needed someone with appeal around the country and it chose Rodney Hide. It is sad but that is the way it goes. 
I want to bring the debate back to the nuclear issue. I want again to focus on Don Brash who I presume was having a sleep today. The last time I saw him in the House was when he had question 3 on the Order Paper and he missed the call on it. The reason was that he was asleep. If one is going to be a member of Parliament a politician or the leader of a party one cannot have a siesta between 2 pm and 2.15 pm. If one has a question in to Parliament and comes along to ask it one has to be awake long enough to actually do it. 
I have yet to see Don Brash awake in this Parliament since that day. On that day someone did wake him up. I think it is fair to say that Murray McCully pulled the string and woke him up so he could ask the question. But since that time has he come to the conclusion that he cannot stay awake in order to ask questions and has taken the wise approach and had a sleep in his room? Or has he just given up? Is he so sick of being beaten by the Prime Minister in the House so sick of entering a battle of wits with Dr Cullen unarmed—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I think there is an interesting point about John Key. The mumblings are coming from the National Party members. I am told that he has not been taking his policy announcements to their caucus which does not bode well for someone who is meant to be a rising star. What is more he keeps on sitting on the front bench. We thought he had been promoted. 
Simon Power 
: We thought Ross Robertson had been promoted. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no we are not silly— 
Simon Power 
: You’ve got nowhere to go on that one! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did not think he was sitting there. I thought Michael Cullen was—such gravitas has the member who is also the Assistant Speaker. He looks like the Deputy Prime Minister I am sure—especially if the angle is right and if he puts his head down and greys his hair slightly. 
But let us get back to the point. The mumblings are happening in the National Party about John Key and his attitude and how he thinks he has been promoted already. Simon Power understands. He spent 4 years studiously doing nothing trying to look like Keith Holyoake in the past making one statement—flogged I think from Peter Fraser— 
Darren Hughes 
: Michael Joseph Savage. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: “Where America goes where UK goes we’ll go too.” he said. The only statement he has made that we can remember is one that almost got him fired. So he has gone back to the policy of the last 4½ years of saying nothing. But he sees his spot going to John Key and he is worried. He is leading the mumbling we understand. 
I want to ask Don Brash about the nuclear policy. When was he telling the truth? Was he telling the truth when he said: “This is an issue where the country’s interests are not well served in having policy flip backwards and forwards.”? Was he telling the truth when he said: “I think the electorate expects the National Party to have quite clear policies on all these issues and I do not think we want to fudge these issues at all.”? When was he telling the truth? 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I was intending to talk and I shall talk about the law and order issues that this Government is failing to deal with. But I really do have a bit of a doozy here that I would like to share with the House before I go as far as that. 
I ask Mr Speaker and the ladies and gentlemen of the House whether they are aware that these days when one goes on a visit to a prison one might be handed a visitors survey form to fill out. The pamphlet I have with me here is a very glossy one. It would have cost the taxpayer a lot of money. But what is of interest is that the Department of Corrections not only is concerned about the way in which it is seen by the visiting public—by all those fine upstanding citizens like members of gangs such as the Mongrel Mob and the Nomads who go to a prison to conduct a bit of business—but actually wants to know what the visiting public thinks. 
I have in my hand a national visit survey form from the Department of Corrections and I want to share with members some of the questions it asks. First it reminds visitors that they are anonymous. When a person comes to the door and signs in as a visitor visiting “Inmate Bloggs” that person is handed a form that says: “We don’t know who you are you are anonymous but we want you to fill in this form. We won’t tell anyone who filled it in.” Then the department proceeds to ask questions on the form like: “Have you ever been asked to bring drugs alcohol or other unauthorised items into a prison? Yes or No.” Then it asks: “What drugs alcohol or other unauthorised items have you been asked to bring into prison? Tick all that apply.” and it lists them. I can just see all the gang members out there lining up and filling in this form very studiously saying: “Yes I bring in drugs and yes I’ve been asked to bring in alcohol and yes I’ve brought in a SIM card. Oh I’ve brought in a weapon and cannabis and methamphetamine and Ecstasy.” It goes on: “What drug alcohol or unauthorised items have you brought into prison that you have not told the prison staff about?”. 
Well how stupid and how naive is it for the Department of Corrections to be asking visitors—and now inmates I understand—these sorts of questions? Is this Government so naive when it comes to dealing with law and order and crime? Does it seriously believe—and I can see Mr Peck laughing already—that inmates their visitors and their associates will fill in this form and not lie or will even bother to fill it in at all? I seriously wonder about a Government that runs its corrections and rehabilitation policies on surveys of that type. What an utter waste of time and money! 
 One other issue of pressing concern to New Zealand First is police staffing and in particular police staffing in communications centres. In the last 2 weeks I have twice asked the Minister of Corrections what he was doing about the overworked overextended staff at communications centres around this country. Those questions have come on the back of articles published in the  
Police Association News 
 Nos 4 and 5 dated May and June giving extensive coverage of the problems facing those centres. I cannot understand why a Government that is so concerned about employees’ rights labour laws and stress in the workplace has ignored the letters received by the Minister of Police from very concerned staff at the communications centres. 
One letter addressed to the “Rt Hon Mr Hawkins” specifically details a number of incidents of concern. One specific incident which I am astounded the Minister has ignored is that pregnant women working as dispatchers are working 10-hour shifts with no relief. Those pregnant women do not even have adequate time to relieve themselves. To do that they would have to abandon their workstations and they fear that if they did that a call for assistance from a policeman on the street would go unanswered and they could be held responsible for the death of a policeman. Those concerns are well articulated in the  
Police Association News 
. 
In reference to waiting times another incident related by a staff member concerns an “elderly woman living on her own being harassed by neighbourhood children. She’s been waiting over an hour now and it may be another hour before attendance will be arranged. At that same time I have logged on seven highway patrols working from the Rangiora base and none of these are available to attend it. They are all dedicated to traffic and traffic alone.” 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 This debate gives the Government the opportunity to warn the people of New Zealand of the dangers associated with a party that has a tradition of saying one thing before a general election and another thing right after that election. In fact it has become so traditional with one party that it could be called a “National pastime”. I think that is true. That is National with a capital “N”. 
Not one single New Zealander believes that National should it ever gain office would not take steps to amend or repeal the nuclear-free legislation and I am sure that National will never gain office because of that policy. I heard Dr Brash say on television last night that National wanted to act in the best interests of the people of New Zealand which is why it would not amend the nuclear-free legislation. However National’s own internal review of the legislation recommended precisely that it was in New Zealand’s interests to amend it. Dr Brash has not resiled from that report at all and that is because he believes in every single word of it. He would love to be upfront with the people of New Zealand and say it was in their best interests because he believed it was in their best interests. But he cannot say that because National’s polling has told it that its standing in the polls would be affected. National has not pulled its policy on the nuclear-free issue on a point of principle; it has simply pulled its policy on a point of polling. That is why most New Zealanders do not believe that that policy is off the table at all. 
The difficulty with Dr Brash is that he thinks the expression “the national interest” is one that has National spelt with a capital “N”. That announcement is about National’s interest—the National Party’s interest. It is nothing more than a cynical attempt to create a false sense of security. But as the TV3 poll confirms the general public is not as foolish as Dr Brash seems to think they are. They know exactly how the National Party operates and it matters not one jot that the leader has changed. It is a National pastime to say one thing before an election and do something else afterwards. National always does that. The public knows that the “puppet on a string” which Dr Brash is well known as is quite capable of speaking out of both sides of his mouth depending on who is pulling the string. If it is the Americans he says one thing; if it is the pollsters he says another. That is what happens with Dr Brash. 
I call it the 15-year pitch. Every 15 years the National Party pitches to the electorate and then runs away with the ball. In 1975 it was the dancing Cossacks on the television screen that signalled the biggest bribe in electoral history. Imagine if National had not won the 1975 election and the New Zealand Superannuation Corporation had survived to the present day. National stole from my parents’ generation the ability to create a sustainable superannuation fund into the future. 
In 1990 it was “no ifs no buts no maybes”. That was a cast-iron guarantee from Mr Bolger that the surcharge would go. Did it go? No it did not. What was worse the National Government increased the age of eligibility over a shorter period than it had promised. 
What will the next 15-year pitch be in 2005? I do not think that National will be upfront. It knows that Dr Brash wants to abandon the Superannuation Fund. He wants to lift the age of entitlement to 70 years and he wants to lower the relativity to the average wage. 
My firm belief is that superannuation will be a key election issue next year and I welcome that fact. Labour has a proud track record on superannuation which we can take to the electorate. National has an appalling record of treachery in that regard and New Zealanders simply cannot afford to risk losing the gains we have made. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to talk about the dirty dirty deal of the Labour Party. Shane Ardern might very well ask what dirty dirty deal of the Labour Party and the public might generally think there was only one lolly scramble in this quarter but we now know there were two. The deal I am talking about is throwing another patronising handout at Maori again in the form of aquaculture marine farms. The Labour Party as opposed to what it is doing for marine farmers in general is giving Maori four bites of the cherry. 
Here is the first bite. The deed of settlement for Ngati Awa which was signed in July 2002 includes a provision whereby the Minister of Conservation when offering by public tender any part of the marine area will give Ngati Awa a preferential right to purchase 5 percent of that space. Another deed of settlement signed in November 2001 with Ngati Tama states that should tendering of the coastal space for marine farming occur Ngati Tama will have preferential right to buy space at the tender price of up to 10 percent of marine farming authorisations. In other words through deeds of settlement Maori already get a preferential right to purchase space—5 percent 10 percent and an open-ended amount in some settlements. That is the first bite of the cherry. 
Last week we heard the Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope say that he would give Maori a second bite of the cherry—that is a blanket 20 percent of aquaculture space right across the country. On top of that we also found out today during question time in the House that the Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope will allow Maori to purchase marine space out of the general pool. So Maori will get one bite through their deeds of settlement they will have a second through the blanket 20 percent and they will be able to have another crack by getting marine space out of the general pool. 
In some areas of this country—for instance in the Marlborough Sounds—before this handout occurred Maori already owned 40 percent of marine farms. They are doing very well in marine farming by getting up out of bed every morning and going to work like everybody else. They do not need this welfare cheque. 
However three bites of the cherry are not enough for the Labour Party. It has also said that iwi will have to be consulted by regional councils and other marine farmers every time a competing marine farmer applies for a marine farm with a resource consent attached. In other words Maori are to be consulted when their competitors go marine farming. They will control this industry. Once again the patronising Labour Party treats Maori as if they cannot do it on their own. The Labour Party gives Maori these handouts through a lolly scramble and the rest of the country pays. The Government should be quite ashamed of that. 
I will table those deeds of settlement because I do not believe that members of the Labour Party’s general caucus even realised that those settlements were signed and if they did then they did not realise that those settlements already give Maori the right to space in their areas. We have here the figures of 10 percent in the case of Ngati Tama and 5 percent in the case of Ngati Awa and NgatiRuanui has an open-ended amount for the specified part of their coastline available for aquaculture space. 
The House will recall that in 1992 National signed a fisheries settlement that gave Maori 20 percent of the wild fishery stock. We did that because Maori were involved in the wild fishery. They had never traditionally been involved in aquaculture. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
:  
A tena koe Mr Speaker. Kei te mihi atu ki a koe ara kei te panui atu ki te ao Maorimonga kaupapa e paana ki a ratou ara nga kaupapa hoki a Te RopuNahinara e whaineiratou ki te murungamangaiMaori katoa i roto i te Whare Paremata. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. I acknowledge you in this address to the Maori world in regard to policies relating to it and those of the National Party as well; in particular the one whereby it is seeking to abolish all Maori representation in the House of Parliament 
.] 
The question is: to be or not to be? It is a question not in the sense of Shylock in the  
Merchant of Venice 
 but perhaps for Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee. Are nuclear-powered ships to be or not to be allowed? The people of our country want to know and the Maori nation wants to know. I am a little bit disappointed in some of the comparisons and statements made by Mr Brownlee and Phil Heatley when they talked about Maori taking three bites of the cherry—and Mr Heatley went on to say that Maori have taken four bites of it. My advice to them is to combine the bites of the two cherries—seven bites—and take one bite of the kumara. Then they might understand and be enlightened on issues that affect Maori. 
First of all I want to say that I admire the enlightened statements made by the former Minister of the Crown in the National Party Sir Douglas Graham and I congratulate him on them. I say to him that the vacant spaces across the other side of this House surely need him right now. They need his wisdom and they need him to jolt the memories of the corpses that sit over there because quite clearly they have forgotten a lot of things. Sir Douglas Graham had integrity amongst the Maori people. He knew tikanga Maori and he understood the Maori nation. He knew what Maori dimensions were all about and he put on the table a fair square deal in terms of Maori and the Crown. 
From what I am hearing Gerry Brownlee say I can see that he has absolutely no understanding about Maoridom and a Maori dimension. He has absolutely no understanding about his role in terms of the perception of Maori. He should at least have some understanding about how to relate to the Maori people. The first thing he said was that he wants to abolish the Maori parliamentary representatives in this House—representatives who were elected in Maori constituencies by Maori voters. I want to say to Maoridom so they hear me loud and clear: “The National Party’s policy is to abolish your Maori representation in this House.” Secondly he also wants to abolish Te PuniKokiri the Ministry of Maori Development. He wants to repeal all legislation that refers to the Treaty of Waitangi. He wants to demolish the Maori Television Service. And he wants to be seen as the future Minister of Maori Affairs? Come on get a life! This is the deputy leader of the National Party the so-called shadow Minister of Maori Affairs saying that he wants to demolish the Maori nation. How does that line up with representing Maori issues and a Maori dimension? I say: “Come back Doug Graham!”. 
I remind members across the other side of the House including my friend the MP for Whangarei in the meantime that the 1992 settlement deal was a very comprehensive one. If he looks at it he will see that it contains some references to aquaculture. Aquaculture in terms of the proposed 20 percent is unfinished business. It was business that was negotiated in 1992 and the Labour Government has the courage to front up and finish the business. It is absolute humbug that Maori already have 10 percent that they already have 5 percent or that they have had three or four bites of the cherry. 
Let me put it to the House this way: when the National Government introduced a quota management system Maori were already fishing with the general quota but this was a completely different quota to the customary quota and the traditional quota that had been negotiated. My colleague across the other side of the House knows that. Maori not only fished in the fishery but also bought and sold commercial quota from the general pool. That was fine. But in terms of the treaty settlement that was something completely different altogether and I am afraid I am a little bit disappointed that my friends across the other side seem to suffer from some sort amnesia when it comes to the true facts. Kia ora tatou. Tihei mauri ora. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Ngati Tama settlement that gave them 10 percent of allocated space. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
PHIL HEATLEY:  
I seek leave to table the Ngati Awa July 2002 deed of settlement that gave them 5 percent of coastal space. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the 1992 deed of settlement that was entered into by the Crown and Maori. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Last Thursday the Minister of Health organised a patsy question from her colleague Steve Chadwick. The question asked: “What is the Government doing to address the continuing meningococcal epidemic?”. After the Minister’s usual loquacious beginning to the answer she said: “The vaccine is safe and will provide protection against the epidemic strain of group B meningococcal disease.” But what did we find the next day? We found that Medsafe had not even licensed the vaccine. The Minister had botched up on the first batch of the vaccine. Meningococcal meningitis is indeed a very serious disease. Of the approximate 5000 cases between 1991 and 2004 there were 220 deaths. In 2003—just last year—there were 540 cases including 13 deaths. 
 Yet here we have the Minister of Health botching up at the beginning of this very serious campaign. She clearly has some explaining to do because the people running this campaign do not even know what is going on. I spoke to them in Auckland yesterday and they do not even know what is going on themselves. Why did she say that the vaccine was safe before it was even licensed before it was even checked out by the international panel of experts? Can the Minister answer me? No she cannot. There is no way that that question can be answered at this stage of events. 
The Minister has now said that she cannot give clear explanations because of commercial secrecy with regard to the people who are manufacturing the vaccine. But there are contracted vaccinators waiting out there in south Auckland right now who have nothing to do because there has been a muck-up. This is a serious waste of very precious health dollars. This is the way the Minister of Health operates. She has started a very important vaccination campaign with a botch-up. Can she guarantee that Medsafe will license the vaccine? Of course she cannot give that guarantee. Therefore she should not have claimed prematurely that the vaccine was safe. 
There are also extremely serious questions about the date of the vaccine and whether there will be any further delays. I read in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that “the Ministry of Health is reassuring the public it’s on track with the meningococcal vaccine.” Yet already the campaign has been delayed by 2 weeks. So how can the ministry say the campaign is on track when it is several weeks late already? What is more there is a chance that the first whole batch of vaccine may have to be dumped at considerable expense. If the Minister had held her instruction to Steve Chadwick if she had instead explained the problems that can occur with a new vaccine she could have been forgiven. But I know that this Minister of Health insisted on her 24 hours of glory before she was found out to be grossly incompetent. 
The other aspect is the wider issue of vaccinations in New Zealand. I have asked on several occasions whether the Minister can tell me how many New Zealand children are having their vaccinations completed. After 4½ years of a Labour Government she cannot even tell us how many children are having their vaccinations completed. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 What an extraordinary week it has been. On 16 June after returning from Washington Don Brash had this to say about the National Party’s nuclear policy: “The likelihood is that if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable and that of course would be after we became Government we would then seek a referendum for any change in the law.” So I thought Jeanette Fitzsimons’ question today as to where the seat of Government was likely to be was relatively astute frankly. 
Then only about 6 weeks’ ago we heard from Simon Power a man in the National Party whom we on this side of the House regard somewhat affectionately—we call him “Mr Mini-Me II”. He had this to say about New Zealand’s relationship with Australia the United States and Britain: “… without reservation we will support our close allies …” Without reservation! Well that again makes Jeanette Fizsimons’ question in the House this afternoon quite astute. 
Then I had a look at where National Party policy had come to. I could just hear Dr Brash going: “Er this is an issue where the country’s interests are not well served in having policy flipped backwards and forwards.” That was his first position in June 2004. Then he said: “Er I think the electorate expects the National Party to have quite clear policies on these issues and I don’t think we want to fudge these issues at all.” That was said on 19 June 2004. 
He had said in January 2004: “Er if the National Party was in Government today we would get rid of the nuclear propulsion session today by lunchtime even.” Then in May 2004 he said: “Er my personal views on this issue er on the task force er are that it appears to offer New Zealand a very useful way forward whereby we can maintain er an effective ban on nuclear-propelled ships visiting New Zealand while easing er the relationship with the United States and if we can pull that off er that’s my strongly preferred outcome.” Who believes any of that? It is no surprise to find that 53 percent of New Zealanders in a poll conducted by TV3 do not believe him. 
Indeed I want to give Rodney Hide credit because only today Rodney Hide said in his inimitable way: “National’s nuclear-powered ship debate has been all process and no outcome. The status quo rules.” I think Rodney Hide is somewhat disappointed. Mr Hide’s party at least has been consistent in saying it would get rid of the nuclear policy and it had Don Brash convinced. It even had “Mr Mini-Me II” convinced that that was the way to go. We have seen an incredible flip-flop on the nuclear policy by the National Party. 
But the National Party got something wrong. Don Brash goes on about that all being in the national interest. Well he spells national with a little “n”. I can tell him that what he thinks is in the national interest is certainly not in New Zealand’s interest and the public have told him that. 
We know—and Darren Hughes who was in the Chamber previously remembers quite well—the policy announcements that were made in 1975 and in 1990 and now it looks as if they will be made again in 2005. It is the “15-year tizz” that the National Party gets. National members get themselves into such a lather about a particular policy that they say they are going to do something and then they do something totally different. 
I have to tell the National Party that the sad thing is that the biggest bulk of voters now are Grey Power voters. They remember Muldoon and Bolger. They remember the policies that were promised by National and were never delivered on. Those voters will not trust National. Do members know what? Those voters have grandchildren. They talk to their grandchildren about the day that Mr Muldoon said he would give them back their superannuation. The only Prime Minister who has ever been shown to break the law in this country is Robert Muldoon—he is the only one. The case  
Fitzgerald 
 v  
Muldoon 
 is a standard case in law schools now. Those voters remember the “no ifs no buts no maybes” from Mr Bolger and they will remember Mr Brash as saying: “Er well I’m a little uncomfortable where we are at the moment.” 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee to take the bill as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Clauses 1 to 4 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I briefly want to state that National supports this bill. It is a very simple bill that provides for the Wellington City Council to be able to sell lease or dispose of land that has been reclaimed in Wellington City. It overrides an Act that was passed in 1879—a date almost as far back as the date giving rise to the recent 150th celebration of this Parliament. 
 National simply takes the view that councils should have the power to be able to use their land as they best see fit. It is not that we hold a view that the land should be sold or not sold or leased or not leased but simply that it is a favour of local democracy for the council to be able to dispose or use that land as it best sees fit. 
The changes that have been made by the Local Government and Environment Committee are small. All we have said in respect of the amendments made during the select committee process was that any disposals or powers with regard to that land should be used in relation to the Local Government Act passed in 2002 so that there is some community consultation around that. Again National supports the bill and I simply commend that it be passed as quickly as possible so that Parliament can get on to other business. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I too would like to rise in support of the comments made by the Hon Nick Smith in his support of the bill. It is pleasing to see that this particular council will be able to exercise its functions and duties. The council will probably have to and has the ability to undertake the special consultative process of a long-term council community plan and I am sure that that will satisfy the democratic process and the right for the public to have a say in the disposal of that land and that is just and proper. 
I think it is timely that this is all happening before the foreshore and seabed legislation takes effect so that this council has the opportunity to do what it can with regard to this land. As members will no doubt be aware local authorities are excluded from the definition of specified freehold interest and I think councils need to be very mindful of and careful about their relationship with the foreshore and seabed legislative provisions. So I say again that the bill is probably timely for the Wellington City Council because the Minister of Conservation will provide redress but no compensation for any local authority land the Crown takes under clause 19 of the foreshore and seabed legislation. So this bill is timely and Wellington City Council can probably consider itself fortunate. I am sure there will be a number of councils looking very closely at the other piece of legislation. National is happy to support this bill into enactment. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that the Local Government and Environment Committee has made some important changes to this bill which will enable the Green Party to support it and will give Wellingtonians a chance to have a say in how their city develops. As the bill was originally drafted it would have allowed the council to disregard all other law in the selling of this precious bit of land. I think we are all aware that it is a precious bit of land right next to Wellington’s civic square across the road from Wellington’s wonderful waterfront. It is a little piece of land called the Jack Ilott Green. I was actually at the ceremony when we named it the Jack Ilott Green not so very long ago and here they are trying to get rid of it—a precious piece of green space in Wellington—so it can be built on which is the councils’ intention. 
As I say the bill as it stood would have allowed the council to disregard all other law in selling this precious bit of land. It would have enabled the council to sell or lease this precious piece of land without reference to any other legislation in this country. Submitters to the select committee were extremely concerned that this would mean the council could sell the land and would not be subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act. Even the officials felt that the original bill gave the council powers that were far too broad. But with the passing of this bill and with the amendments that have been made in the select committee the council will be required to adhere to section 12 of the Local Government Act which states that while council has the capacity to carry out or undertake an activity it must exercise it in accordance with all other legislation in this country. That means essentially that council will be required to consult the community before it sells off this precious piece of land. 
As I said there has been significant concern in the community over the sale of this land. While it is not the role of central government to intervene and tell Wellington City Council what land it can or cannot sell it is nevertheless our role to make sure that due process—the proper process—is followed in the sale of council assets. By amending this legislation we are ensuring that that will happen. I sincerely hope that a robust community consultation process will enable the community to have a say about what happens to this land and that council will be required to look at all the options and not just dispose of it because it is a loss of public space—precious green space. A new building would block views to the waterfront and also shadow the wonderful Wellington civic square. As I said in my original speech on this bill in the second reading we were concerned when submitters to the select committee pointed out that this bill had not been passed by the Wellington City Council. The councillors themselves other than some of those who were on a particular subcommittee did not know that this bill was coming to the Parliament. 
That does seem to us to be very odd. There did not seem to have been public consultation with Wellingtonians about what was being proposed—even just some little public notice to alert them that a bill was coming before Parliament. Fortunately some submitters found out about it by various means and they did make submissions and alert the committee to their concerns and therefore we were able to amend the original Act. Now the council will not be able to sell this land while disregarding all other laws in the land. It will be required to abide by the Local Government Act and it will be required to consult the community before it sells off the land. Thus it will take care of our major concerns on this bill and we will be able to support it. As I said previously I think the sale of this land and the consultation about selling this land will be quite a significant issue in the election because Wellingtonians are very very concerned about the sale of any more precious green space in Wellington City. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 As a Wellington-based MP I am happy to rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in favour of this bill and I am pleased that it is getting the support of the entire Committee. In fact it is a case of the sooner the better with this bill. It is terrible that the Wellington City Council has in fact been hamstrung by central government on an issue that is a local one and it is quite right and proper that this bill should come before the House and be passed with a good deal of haste. 
I note that some amendments have been made to the bill since its introduction and Ms Kedgley has just spoken about the Local Government Act and the amendments that have been made in that regard. I think that the Wellington City Council has always been very good at consulting its constituents and there will be change here either with or without the amendments to the Local Government Act pertaining to this bill. I think that the council should be left to go about its business as it thinks fit and selling this piece of land without having to go through hoops as the original Act indicated that it should have to is totally inappropriate. The council should be able to make its own decisions in a democratic process which it has shown itself to be very good at. So I just want to take this short call to express ACT New Zealand’s support of this bill and its hasty passage through the Chamber. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on behalf of United Future to indicate our support for the passage of this bill. We believe that local government should be able to make decisions regarding its own affairs. The Local Government Act 2002 gave what was called “powers of general competence” to local councils and this is in keeping with what was requested from us in this bill. The select committee has spent considerable time making sure that the interests of Wellington ratepayers and residents would be well taken into consideration throughout the process and the amendments that have been mentioned which mean that they will be subject to the conditions of the Local Government Act 2002 were entirely sensible. 
The only regret I have is that this bill was passed to us on 14 May 2003 and it has taken a considerable amount of time to process what is a very small bill through the select committee. In part that is due to fact that our committee has had to devote an enormous amount of time to the “corngate” inquiry and I look forward to the inquiry being concluded in a speedy manner so that we can get on to legislation such as this which is often sent to us as a committee and which local authorities around the country are waiting upon. At least in this instance the Wellington City Council will very soon have the legislation it needs in order to get on with its affairs. We are happy to see it pass through this Chamber very quickly. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation. We are only too happy to ensure that the people of Wellington through their Wellington City Council can administer their own affairs in their own way. We support the speedy passage of the bill through the Committee. 
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Given the time that this bill has been going through the process I seek leave for it to be given its third reading forthwith with a shortened debate of just 5 minutes per party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry that is a matter for the House. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Procedure 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This is a non-controversial bill that has the support of every party in the House. It has been around for some time. Therefore I seek leave for the bill’s third reading to be held forthwith with 5-minute speeches per party. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is an important bill for the Wellington region. As the member of Parliament for Wellington Central and as the Minister for the Environment I fully support the initiatives of the Wellington Regional Council to provide for sustainable energy projects within the Wellington region. The council is conducting feasibility studies into a number of sites that may be suitable for wind generation and as far as the wind resource goes those sites show considerable promise—but not today; there is not a breath of wind out there. Some of the sites are on council land that is administered under the Wellington Regional Water Board Act of 1972—a legacy of local government prior to its reorganisation in 1989. The Act constrains the Wellington Regional Council in its desire to make multiple sustainable use of the water board land as it only allows for the granting of permits for temporary occupation of the land for purposes other than water supply or forestry. 
This bill allows the council to enter into any contract agreement or arrangement with any developer to produce renewable energy if the land is found to be suitable for electricity generation thereby providing some security of tenure for the developer’s very substantial investment. I see this council initiative as a proactive step towards achieving the policies in the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and certainly in line with the recent change to the Resource Management Act regarding the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. Further the bill specifically states that it does not override any of the requirements of the Resource Management Act. The bill is a measured response to the need to provide a framework that will allow for electricity generation on this council land. Joint use of the land for water collection from the valleys and for wind turbines on the ridges and upper slopes seems to me to be a very sustainable use of the land. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 National will support the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill because it provides for the sensible use of Wellington’s natural resources to try to provide some electricity and energy. But I do point out an extraordinary contradiction by this Government. When it comes to Wellington if Wellington wants to use some reserve land by putting wind farms on it to try to be energy sustainable this Government which is driven by political correctness says that that is fine and is no trouble. That is despite the fact that Wellington actually has considerably less reserve land than most other parts of New Zealand. Wellington is a very intensely urban area; there is not a great deal of open space within the Wellington region. I would like to know from a member of the Labour Party why it is when it comes to Wellington that we can have a special bill to enable Wellington to have wind farms on reserve land but if we hop down to the West Coast where 87 percent of the land is in reserves and national parks this Government will not let even a small iota of that land be used. 
Why is there a double standard? Why is it that it is OK to have wind farms on reserve land in Wellington but it is not OK to have the Dobson hydro project take place on reserve land on the West Coast? Let us be honest about this. How much of the hundreds of hectares of reserve land subject to the provisions of this bill is used for recreation by the people of Wellington? There are 300000 or 400000 people living in the Wellington region and that land is used quite a lot. People walk on it bike on it and use it a great deal. The Minister agrees with me. We asked down in Dobson how many people recreate in the 10 percent of the Card Creek ecological area that is required for the Dobson dam. When we asked how many people recreate in that area the answer was zip. There is no record of anybody recreating in that particular area. So why is it that for this Government there is one set of rules when it comes to Wellington and another when it comes to the West Coast? 
I suspect that it comes down to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went down to the West Coast and called the people there feral and inbred. We have all sorts of material from Ministers on the Government side of the House about non-discrimination and about equality before the law yet when it suits them they change the rules. I see Helen Duncan piping up. Can she explain to me why the people of Wellington are allowed to have wind farms on their reserves but down on the West Coast the Minister and the Government say point-blank that people there are not allowed to use reserve land and that it cannot be done? The Minister of Conversation said it cannot be done but it can. All the Government needs to do is to introduce a bill. 
Helen Duncan 
: I lived in Nelson for years and I don’t want that project to go ahead. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Helen Duncan from Auckland says to the people on the West Coast that the Government will not let them use 0.03 percent of its reserve land. This bill represents 5 percent of the reserve land in Wellington. It is OK for Wellington to use 5 percent of its reserve land but it is not proper for the West Coast to use 0.03 percent of its reserve land for electricity generation. 
What does this Government have against the people of the West Coast? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that this is a local bill and the discussion about Dobson which has nothing to do with the Wellington regional reserves is right off the topic. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a good point. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That matter certainly has a lot to do with the topic. We have here in a local bill a mechanism to change the status of land and add to the functions it can be used for so that energy farming can occur on what is equivalent to reserve land. The point that is being made is that we have an absolute parallel on the West Coast where a small bill like this could allow the Dobson dam proposal to proceed. I would put it to you that that is a very valid analogous situation and is a very valid point that needs to be made. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The matter however is a simple one. The member cannot point to a clause in the bill that refers to the matter under discussion because no such clause exists. This is a local bill. It is not a Government policy bill and the member should confine himself to the bill before the House. 
Shane Ardern 
: Part 2 is actually called “Electrical installations and works”. That is the part that is relevant to the discussion raised by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Often these matters can be rather wide ranging but it does help to maintain order in the House if we try to keep within the ambit of a bill. I know that the member is trying to do that and I hope that he will keep on doing that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Why is it that the Government can come into this House and support a local bill for the people of Wellington to use reserve land for generating electricity while at the same time a Minister of the Crown Chris Carter can go on National Radio and say that is impossible and cannot be done—that reserve land on the West Coast cannot be used for electricity generation? That is a contradiction and it is untrue. It would be no trouble at all for the member for West Coast - Tasman if he is half-effective as a member for that district to introduce into this House a local bill that does the same thing that this bill provides for. There is a contradiction in Government policy: the Government has one set of rules for Wellington and a different set of rules for the West Coast. Nor does it have any consistency in its policy in terms of wind farms versus hydro-electricity. They both are renewable sources of energy and they both deserve the support of this House in helping to meet New Zealand’s energy needs. There is no excuse for the duplicitous approach of the Government whereby it has one rule for Wellington and another for the West Coast. 
I challenge the Minister of Conservation to speak. Chris Carter has told the people at the top of the South Island where the lights could go out on any night between 5 pm and 7 pm in the next month or two through this winter that reserve land cannot be used under any circumstances for power generation. He says that in one breath yet the next minute the Government introduces this bill. So I want to hear from Chris Carter. I want him to contribute to this debate and to explain to Parliament why it is OK to use reserve land for electricity generation in Wellington but is not OK to do so on the West Coast. 
I also think this bill is too narrow. One either believes in the power of general competence or one does not. It is my view that we should trust the Wellington Regional Council to use the land for whatever purposes it best sees fit. This bill is quite narrow and restrictive; it only allows electrical installation and works. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: That’s what they are asking for. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Indeed but I simply ask the member who is interjecting why we do not trust the council? It is council land. The council is democratically elected so it should decide. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister Mark Burton says the council has not asked for it. I would suggest to the member that if the council—[ 
Interruption 
] If Mr Burton would just get a grip on himself I will continue. If the council came to me and said it wanted to introduce a local bill so that it could flexibly use its land because the current legislation was very restrictive I would ask it why we should not make it a wide-ranging bill. Why not solve the overall problem and instead of just applying it to wind turbines allow the land to be used for general purposes? Why not let the people of Wellington decide how they want to use their land as they best see fit rather than provide for the form of restrictive regime that is in this bill? If the Government is genuinely committed to the power of general competence it would say to the Wellington Regional Council that this is its land that the council should have a proper public process and that it should use this particular land for the purposes that it best intends rather than have Parliament prescribe how the land should be used. 
Members on the National side of the House support the bill. We think it is sensible that Wellington Regional Council can use the land for those purposes but we challenge the Government to have some consistency between Wellington and other parts of the country. We cannot have one set of rules in Wellington and another on the West Coast. We further say that the bill should give the council a lot more freedom in how it uses the land previously set aside for the purposes of waterworks and forestry than this bill gives it. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill. We are only too keen to assist the people of Wellington to improve their way of life. After looking at this bill I have a couple of queries for the member Marian Hobbs when she comes to speak in reply as I see she can. Under the principal Act the council is “empowered to establish forests and carry out forestry operations. For these purposes certain lands are vested in or under its control as water collection areas or as forestry areas … The object of this bill is to authorise the Council [to] establish and operate electrical installations and works in circumstances similar to those permissible under the Reserves Act 1977 whether itself or by a council-controlled organisation or a council-controlled trading organisation or under any contract agreement or arrangement.” That is a pretty broad way of getting an authority. 
From listening to the speeches so far I gather that this legislation will allow the council to establish windmills and wind farms. They can be pretty noisy and they are not environmentally sound just by themselves. Because they are obtrusive and noisy there are many examples of any number of objections to them where they are being installed or consent is being sought to have them installed. I note with interest that clause 6 of this bill states: “This Act does not limit or affect the Resource Management Act 1991.” I presume therefore that nothing can be done by the Wellington Regional Council unless it lodges a resource consent application which the people of the area will have the opportunity to object to and be heard on and that a decision will be made by an independent body as to whether this type of use can be undertaken and continued. I would not want and I know New Zealand First would not want to impose a windmill next door to where somebody may be living enjoying his or her way of life recreating or walking a dog. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: But the same body will get the Resource Management Act applications. 
DAIL JONES 
: I would be most concerned if the same body hears the resource consent applications because that would obviously be a conflict of interest. I assume that the council would set up a commissioner to do that but it would still be a commissioner of the council and it would not surprise me at all if the application went on to an appeal straight away. So to those people who may believe that this would be an overnight type of thing—that as soon as the legislation is passed effect can be given to it—and to those people of Wellington who may walk their dog or go for a stroll in what appears to be a reserve-type area I assure them that the noise from a windmill that may upset their dog or just upset their enjoyment of a park cannot suddenly be imposed on them. 
I look forward to those people or anyone else from the Wellington area or other areas making submissions to the select committee where my colleague Jim Peters sits as a rule and takes note of everything that is said. New Zealand First wants to make sure that all the people of Wellington support this proposal and that they do not feel that this legislation is one way of having something imposed on them that might not otherwise have been done in the ordinary course of events. New Zealand First also advises people that in any event the Resource Management Act still applies. We in this party do not want to see the Resource Management Act removed willy-nilly because it does—and this is a classic example—help to protect people’s individual rights and their enjoyment of New Zealand as a whole. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is extraordinarily pleased to support the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill. Interestingly many people have asked me over the years why in this windy city we do not capitalise on our climate and our wind by having wind farms and wind turbines all over Wellington. We do have one wind turbine up in Brooklyn but that is all. This bill will enable wind farms and wind turbines to be built in reserve areas of Wellington. It is such a sensible idea that the Green Party is absolutely delighted to support it. 
Shane Ardern 
: What about the birds? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Some of the Opposition members have suddenly developed a great concern for birds. The truth of the matter is that if a wind turbine is built in the path of migrating birds there may be issues but for the most part there are not. 
If Wellington because of its wind was to embrace wind farms—as this bill will enable us to do—we could be self-sufficient in energy within 5 to 10 years. What a fantastic thing that would be for Wellington! Within 10 years we could be self-sufficient in renewable energy. Mr Shirley is getting very upset about that but I assure him that it is entirely feasible and entirely possible. What a wonderful vision for Wellington—that we could be self-sufficient in renewable energy. We could be impervious to the great energy debates that are going on around New Zealand. We could be certain that we anyway are self-sufficient in energy. 
This bill is basically an extraordinarily sensible bill. It is one that the Green Party very enthusiastically supports. One of the concerns people have about wind farms aside from the birds is whether they can be noisy next to a residential area. This bill will enable wind farms and wind turbines to be built away from urban areas so that we can get round that particular issue. 
In summary the Green Party is absolutely delighted with this bill. We strongly support it. We hope it can make speedy progress through this House. We hope that it finally will enable Wellingtonians to capitalise and build on the great strength of our climate and wind and that it will be the first step in enabling Wellington to be self-sufficient in renewable energy within the next decade. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is happy to support the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill but really we have to ask ourselves why on earth legislation like this is occupying the time of Parliament. All that the bill does is allow the Wellington Regional Council which has taken over the functions of the former Wellington Regional Water Board to extend its functions so that it can set up windmills in these large forestry catchments. Why do we need to change an Act of Parliament to allow that? We are meant to have changed the Local Government Act in order to give powers of general competence so that councils could have wide powers and do these things yet we are debating a very minor little point—to change the status of land so that this council can set up windmills. 
I am actually very familiar with these areas. My first job was with the Wellington Regional Water Board where I was employed as a scientific field officer. Prior to that I spent a lot of my earlier years as a young boy chasing pigs and deer around the Orongorongos the Rimutakas and the Whakatiki catchment which is most of the area referred to in the bill. I know it intimately. My job was to assess the water flows and catchment yields of these various areas so I know them well. This proposal is to allow the setting up of windmills on the ridges and tops. Wind is a good form of renewable energy and ACT certainly will support it. 
But the Green members really are a bit inconsistent. They say they love windmills and are happy to support them but there are downsides to windmills too as with coal mining and damming rivers. With windmills we have to have transmission lines. Will the Greens support the transmission lines to take the power from the windmills down the ridge—big ugly lengthy transmission lines right on the ridge top? Green members are the sorts of people who would welcome the windmills but oppose the transmission lines. What utter nonsense that would be! Windmills do chop up native birds. Increasingly the evidence shows that they do so in very large numbers. Some Green movements overseas are now starting to rail—excuse the pun—against windmills because of the impact on bird populations. They also can be very noisy and others will say that they cause visual pollution. 
The real issue—which has already been raised and I would like to do it again—is the point that Dr Nick Smith raised about the incredible contradiction and duplicity of this Government. The explanatory note of the bill states: “The object of this bill is to authorise the Council to establish and operate electrical installations and works in circumstances similar to those permissible under the Reserves Act 1977”. I have no difficulty with that. That is fine. It is renewable energy and that is good. But the energy produced by the Dobson scheme at Card Creek on the West Coast would have been renewable too. The Department of Conservation has reserve lands covering 87 percent of the West Coast and it was proposed that a very small area be used to create renewable energy—hydro energy—to produce 65 megawatts which would make the West Coast self-sufficient in electricity. That is point one. It would also obviate the need to run a new transmission line from Lake Coleridge and Kikiwa through a national park; think of the impact of new transmission lines through a national park relative to using just a few hectares at Dobson Creek! It would also overcome the power crisis we have in the upper South Island because every kilowatt and megawatt that we can generate above the Islington power station alleviates that problem. 
But for straight dogmatic reasons this Labour Government said that no an existing power scheme could not be upgraded from 15 megawatts to 60 megawatts. That appalling decision has been the subject of much debate in the House. I suspect that it will be raised time and time again until a future Government overturns that very silly decision of this Labour Government. It is absolute nonsense and it is just a case of the dogma and rhetoric that we get from the Prime Minister Helen Clark and Chris Carter the Minister of Conservation who does her bidding. There is no other rational explanation of why the Government should oppose the TrustPower scheme in the Dobson area. It is important from a strategic point of view not just for the West Coast but for the whole integrity of our power supply. It would produce renewable energy and be in a water-rich area. The West Coast does not suffer droughts—we all know that. It is a very sensible place to upgrade that power scheme. 
That was reserve land and the Government said that it could not be done there—that it was utterly impossible. The Minister for the Environment did not even realise the hypocrisy that she brought to the House today. Government members are saying what a wonderful thing for Wellington it would be to set up all these windmills on reserve land because they would produce renewable energy. What is the difference I ask the Minister between this scheme in the Wellington region and the Dobson scheme on the West Coast? It is an absolutely duplicitous situation that the Government has brought to us today. 
I would also in passing like to challenge one of the facts that Sue Kedgley from the Greens raised. She made some prediction that within 10 years 50 percent of the power generation would come from wind. Well the facts are that if we quadrupled our wind generation we would generate only 2 percent of our electricity demand. A quadrupling of our wind generation would give us only 2 percent of our generation. That is the reality of it. I am not saying that wind power is not important. It is. It is part of the mix. But what a lot of people do not realise is that wind generators are less reliable than water. Water is intermittent and flows change but at least one can predict when it will be dry. We cannot predict when the wind will not blow. If one becomes reliant on windmills as the Danish have found out one then has to have backup thermal stations for when the wind is not blowing. That is the reality; otherwise there is no power. So one might become more and more independent but one is also more and more vulnerable. That is why although wind is part of the solution I put it to the House that it is a relatively small part. It is not the answer that the Greens and some people would like to paint it as. 
We will support this bill. We do not know why it is before Parliament as it is a very minor issue. We see no problem with it at all other than the incredible duplicity of the Labour Government in saying that it is fine to have windmills on reserve land because they produce renewable energy but we cannot produce hydro energy which is an even better form of renewable energy on reserve land on the West Coast. That is absolute duplicity. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I concur with the previous speaker about the apparent duplicity between the format of this legislation and proposals relating to the development of a hydro dam at Dobson on the West Coast. He will know that United Future takes a very strong view that that is a desirable project and will continue to push it. However that is beyond the scope of this bill. 
I want to speak as a Wellington member of Parliament about the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill which we will support going to the select committee. But I have to tell the House that there are some elements of concern in the bill as it is presently drafted that I would want to see addressed before we make a decision as to its further progress. 
This bill seeks to make it possible for the Wellington Regional Council as the successor to the Wellington Regional Water Board to establish alternative power generation opportunities on lands that have been vested to it or are owned by it. On the face of it that is not a problem. But one of the issues that arises—and I am concerned about it when I look at the provisions of clause 4(2)—is that around Wellington through the prudent management of the regional council over a number of years we have a significant number of regional parks which have been established for the enjoyment and the benefit of Wellingtonians and which are widely used. I think of the Belmont Regional Park in my own electorate as a classic example. It is true that the topography of Wellington means that most elevated sites lend themselves to being good sites for windmills—there is a certain substance that seems to blow through the air that makes the windmills turn. One of the issues that is therefore of concern is that unless we are very careful there is the possibility of a number of those areas that Wellingtonians like to think of as good recreation areas becoming distorted damaged or overtaken by the high windmills that would be used to generate renewable energy. There would be a public reaction against that. So I think that one of the issues the select committee will have to address is the scope of the bill the limitations that might need to be imposed upon any such wind farms or their equivalent that might be established and the conflict between that and good recreational practice. 
I have already indicated in writing to the member for Wellington Central who is sponsoring this bill some concern about the second issue which relates to the provisions of clause 5. It states that the functions conferred by clause 4 which relate to the construction operation and maintenance of any electrical installations and works may be performed by a council-controlled organisation or council-controlled trading organisation if the Wellington Regional Council agrees to that and if that organisation is controlled by the Wellington Regional Council. It is a very limited scope and we have some concern about that limitation. There is no rational reason why the limitation needs to apply only to trading operations established by the Wellington Regional Council and we cannot see any justification contained in the legislation the explanatory note or any of the correspondence related to the bill for that limitation. It is a matter that deserves some examination at the select committee. 
It relates back to the point I made a moment or two ago about the scope of activities that might be permitted. If there was better clarity of definition of that authorisation process and what the scope of those activities might be then the requirement—which the regional council presumably has insisted on—that only organisations that it controls can be permitted to operate those facilities would be lessened. That is a debate that needs to be had before the select committee and it is a matter that the select committee needs to tease out and get some answers to. We are not at all satisfied with it as it stands at the moment. 
I am aware as a Wellington member of Parliament that there is a keenness to proceed with this issue. I think the Wellington Regional Council has demonstrated a willingness to be involved in looking at alternative renewable energy sources and shows a degree of innovation in that regard. By and large the Wellington public—the “not in my backyard” syndrome notwithstanding—is broadly supportive of that concept. Those members who are familiar with the windmill high above Brooklyn will know that it is a source of great amusement and bafflement to Wellingtonians who love to go there stand under it listen to it whirr and wonder at its size and power and any new wind farms that are established will have that same element to them. But the problem will be that if people feel that their ability to enjoy other skylines in other recreational areas is compromised in the process they will feel less inclined towards the bigger objective. 
I think there will be some public suspicion about why the organisations to be involved must be council-controlled. In fact the facility at Brooklyn—the member for Wellington Central may correct me if I am wrong—is operated by one of our major power companies anyway so it would come outside the scope of this bill were it being established afresh. The Zephyrometer that members will be familiar with—one sees it as one comes around Evans Bay—is operated by Meridian Energy. That is not a council-controlled organisation. 
So my point is that clause 5 as it stands is unnecessarily limited. I have not seen any good justification advanced for why it needs to be so and I will need to be convinced of it before giving any support to the bill beyond the first reading stage. I will certainly be interested in the view of the council as to why it needs to limit the provisions in that way. 
As other members have said the issue of having the capacity to generate alternative energy is an important one. It will become increasingly so in the future. This bill is a positive step forward as legislation but the issues I have outlined do need to be addressed and the select committee is the place to do that. So at this stage we will be supporting the bill going that far. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to thank the House for its support to take this bill through to the Local Government and Environment Committee and also for its intention to scrutinise it. I remind some members of the House that this is a local bill. I seem to have sponsored a fair few of them this year and during my term as member for Wellington Central. 
When local government—in this case Greater Wellington which is the regional council in the area—comes to a member it comes to him or her with an idea. The member takes that idea and talks it through with the council but he or she does not tell the council what it wants. It is a local bill; it is not a Government bill. It is not for me to say to the council: “Oh excuse me but I’ve got a better idea. I’m going to tell you what you ought to have in your bill.” The member sponsors the bill through the House but sponsors it through for discussion. If a member takes a bill into the House he or she will be open to the rigour of the House with members asking questions—and that might be a situation that is more rigorous than some others. 
I want to take up something that Dail Jones raised and to tell him that there are real concerns around noise and issues of enjoyment and around the enjoyment of ridgelines. I also want to make it very clear here in Parliament that of course this legislation is subject to the Resource Management Act and I urge members of the select committee to please explore that issue right through but not to confuse it with the Makara issue. That is a Wellington City Council issue not a Wellington Regional Council issue where we are dealing with Puketiro and Belmont in the honourable member’s electorate. 
Mr Shirley raised the question of why we are using House time. The problem is that the Wellington Regional Council could not proceed with any work on this bill because it contradicted the Wellington Regional Water Board Act. That Act states that that land—which the member obviously knows well—is only for water collection and forestry so it specifically prevents this. So I am sorry that we have to use the time of the House to do it. 
I acknowledge that there is a huge debate on wind generation. I am very much aware of it in my own electorate with Makara and Quartz Hill. But the Ministry for the Environment—and I am not speaking here as local member but as Minister for the Environment—is actually working quite hard with local councils to establish up-to-date guidelines that take in all the work coming out of Denmark and other European countries—work to do with birds noise and other such issues. I point out that the windmill up in Brooklyn that is loved by some people in Wellington Central is very small compared with the windmills that may well be coming in. It is a wee baby of a windmill compared with those that may end up here. 
I of course would want to see more renewable energy—certainly in the form of wind energy. I think that Wellington will be careful in having that but we must also be careful not to lose all our ridgelines. The thought of looking from my house across the harbour and watching windmills on those purple hills all whirring at once does not do much for me. So let us use just a few of those hills not the whole lot. With that adieu I thank the House and I hope the committee will put in a lot of effort to sort our bill through. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theLocal Government and Environment Committee. 
Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I move  
That the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. As the promoter of this bill I have agreed with the Justice and Electoral Committee that the bill not proceed. However I do wish to explain why. For over 60 years there has been a convention in New Zealand not to name police officers involved in fatal firearm incidents while on duty. That convention was broken 3 years ago after the High Court ruled that the publication was allowed of the name of the officer who shot Steven Wallace on a street in Waitara. The police officer involved literally had to go into hiding with his family for 6 months for fear of retribution and that situation motivated me to introduce a member’s bill to allow temporary name suppression of police involved in fatal shootings. Not only did that shooting cause huge media interest but it resulted in lengthy legal proceedings including a private prosecution brought by the deceased’s family against the constable. 
The bill was supported by National Labour New Zealand First and United Future through its first reading in Parliament. The bill received five public submissions of which two supported the bill and two opposed the bill and the New Zealand Law Society expressed technical changes. 
The Commonwealth Press Union is the organisation representing the interests of newspaper editors and publishers in New Zealand on press-freedom matters. That union and John Rowan QC the lawyer who took the private prosecution for the Wallace family opposed the bill. The Commonwealth Press Union submitted: “Initial police action to suppress Constable Abbott’s identity was based on uncorroborated belief that the  
New Zealand Herald  
intended to identify.” There had been suggestions that the shooting had been racially initiated and the newspaper had reason to believe that the police officer was himself of Maori descent. Subsequent to the High Court hearing that allowed publication it was the  
National Business Review  
and the  
Waikato Times  
that published the name. The Commonwealth Press Union further submitted: “In a free and open society the media must have the ability to inquire into the validity of the cause of lethal force by an employee of the State and to do so independent of any State agency that may inquire into the circumstances. Automatic name suppression would hamper legitimate media inquiries even if there was no intention of publishing the officer’s name unless to do so was in the public interest.” 
The submission from the New Zealand Police Association was understandably strongly supportive of the bill and in line with the initial motivation I had for introducing the name protection legislation. The Police Association submitted that the protection provided by anonymity where police officers are found to have been acting lawfully and in the execution of their duty is as important for the safety of the officer and his or her family as any other protection provided by the State. The association argued further: “Police officers are public officials doing a public job often in dangerous and difficult situations. Until such time as it is proven that an officer’s actions were unlawful the law should provide for their personal physical and emotional safety and that of their families by giving them the protection of anonymity.”  
The  
Waikato Times  
was noted to have a far more fundamental view. It stated: “An open court is one of the foundations of a judicial system. It means that the public had a right to know who was appearing before the courts. It demonstrates all citizens are equal before the law. If there are extenuating circumstances that could be grounds for suppression then there are processes available.” 
The select committee having heard those competing views requested that the Commonwealth Press Union return for further questioning. It was that exchange that persuaded me to support dropping the bill. I was very impressed that the Commonwealth Press Union members were highly concerned at the breach of the long-standing convention and were very willing to reach a constructive alternative to a further law being introduced. Somewhat to my amazement it was revealed that the convention not to publish the name of an officer involved in a fatal shooting had never been written down although it had been informally reaffirmed after 60 years in 2002 after external discussions between the Minister of Justice and a wide number of television radio and print media representatives. 
At the select committee an assurance was given by the chair of the Commonwealth Press Union Mr Gavin Ellis that he would seek to have the matter of the convention put into writing perhaps with a code of conduct at the next meeting of the Press Freedom Committee. I understand that that particular committee has now changed its name. He noted that the Commonwealth Press Union does not control its members and that it is important that editors can exercise their own judgment common sense and consciences. 
The select committee in its conclusions said: “We would also like to issue a firm warning to the media that any further transgression from this convention may result in legislative intervention from Parliament.” I personally felt that it was not necessary to issue such a warning. In fact on balance I was satisfied that dropping my proposed bill without incurring further expense was potentially a win-win solution where no extra law is passed where press freedom is maintained and where the Commonwealth Press Union has reaffirmed the desire to exercise great responsibility towards the police and their families. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This matter has had a very good airing and I appreciate the very clear competent and expressive report presented to the House just now by Dr Paul Hutchison which has made me much better informed on the issue than I was a little while ago. Clearly he has had a good look at the whole issue and has decided not to proceed with the matter. 
It is very difficult for a member of Parliament to change his or her mind and it shows a greater level of understanding achievement and ability on the part of the member to be able to do so having heard all the submissions. It is something one wishes this minority Government would do from time to time on bills that go before select committees when they receive submissions indicating that legislation is absolutely wrong but push ahead with it regardless. 
I would like to congratulate Dr Hutchison on the work he has done on this issue and on the manner in which he has presented it to the House. New Zealand First will be supporting the motion before the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to endorse what the previous speaker said. I would also like to congratulate Paul Hutchison on the serious way he has gone about this bill and the Law and Order Committee on the work it did in dealing with a real problem but dealing with it in a way that does not undermine our justice system and press freedom. 
I think that the underlying principle is that we cannot have two laws in this country—one for the police and one for other citizens. Of course we can do things as the Commonwealth Press Union does and as most media outlets do and operate in a responsible way recognising the difficult task the police have recognising that they often have to deal with violent situations where accidents can happen and recognising that we should act in a way that does not cause police officers unnecessary embarrassment either for themselves or for their families and lead to consequences that are unnecessary and bad for them. I think we operate with that understanding but at the end of the day there cannot be two systems particularly when what is involved are very difficult firearm incidents that cause a lot of emotion in the community. Often it is difficult for communities and the rest of the country to work out where the blame lies. 
We saw that in the Wallace case where there was quite a division of opinion in the community and that was reflected right through to the court process. It was resolved through the legal system and I think that all parties learnt something from the whole process—one system operating for all including the police in that case. Of course such a process can cause hurt and the publicity around the case can cause hurt. It is the same with other defendants particularly those who are found to be not guilty in the end. They often feel a lot of hurt and their families feel hurt for the suffering they have had in the process—a process during which their names have been blackened to some extent. 
But sometimes the convention of protecting the name of the person has to be departed from in some cases because if there is real information that perhaps a police officer was involved in some wrongdoing or criminal activity in an incident involving a firearm the case may have to go to trial. On some occasions it is actually in the interests of justice that the name of the officer is known. If we look at other cases we see that it is often the public nature of our criminal justice system and the name of the alleged offender being known that help to resolve whether that person is guilty. 
I was out on the steps of Parliament at 1 o’clock this afternoon helping to receive a petition on the Scott Watson case. I want to use that as an illustration in that Scott Watson’s name being known in the lead-up to his trial while the police investigation was going on did help the police to gather more evidence in the case. After seeing his picture people who knew Scott Watson came forward with information on his character on what else he had done and on what else had happened on the night of the sad case of the disappearance of two young people. The name of the alleged offender being known actually helped that case. 
Going beyond that there is a little bit of a turn-round to the other way at the present time and more people are coming forward. Some of the witnesses who were involved in the prosecution are now coming forward and saying: “Hold on our evidence was misused.” “There was evidence that wasn’t used.” and “You seem to have the wrong person.” etc. Because the process was public first it helped the police to convict Scott Watson and second it may at the end of the day help him to get off. That is the way the justice system works. 
I understand that on occasion the police can get upset and rightly so if the name of a police officer goes out into the media unnecessarily. Of course there is always a tendency in any social group including the police to protect one’s own. The police will tend to interpret the actions of one of their fellow officers in a more positive light than would others maybe. There will be a public debate on that as there was in the Wallace case but it is sometimes in the interests of justice for the name to come out at a certain point. 
The bill relates to protecting the name of a person during the hearings or proceedings of the Police Complaints Authority which generally goes into action on such incidents. One problem with that in my experience is that the proceedings of the Police Complaints Authority can be very drawn out and can actually prevent justice from taking place at the end of the day. In my case I put in a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority in 1999 on the issue of police actions during protests against a visiting Chinese dignitary. There is indication that I will get a result but over 4½ years later the complaint is still being processed. So if one talks about a criminal justice system involving a police officer having to wait for more than 4½ years before anything proceeds in that officer’s case and before there is any reference to the officer concerned in the media then one is putting a big restraint on the possibility of justice operating. 
On behalf of the Green Party then I support this bill not proceeding any further and I do commend members of Parliament the select committee and Mr Hutchison for the way in which the matter has been dealt with. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on behalf of United Future to make a few comments on the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison and I thank him for bringing this very important issue to light. Although I understand that the bill will be discharged I think it has achieved quite a number of goals and I thank Paul Hutchison for that. 
The first goal of course is that when we ask the police to do the job on our behalf to protect us and support the law very often they are put in the firing line. In this particular case the public identification of Constable Abbott did a huge disservice to him and to his family as well. The media convention not to name police was very definitely broken in that instance. 
The only reasonable response to that is to turn the media convention into enforceable legislation. It would have been regrettable to have to do that because the ability for the media to scrutinise is a right that we all must uphold and value. If nothing else what Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment bill sought to do and in fact did was clarify that convention. From now on there will not be a newspaper in this country that has not been put on notice. If newspapers flaunt the convention there will be a legislative response. 
For that alone credit must be given to Paul Hutchison for putting this bill forward. I thank him and the other members of the Law and Order Committee for looking into this amendment bill and for getting a very good result at the end of the day. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 The answer I gave to a supplementary question from Gerry Brownlee to oral question No. 4 today was incorrect. The foreshore and seabed legislation has been mentioned in documents and discussions on aquacultural reform on a limited number of occasions predominantly in the context of ensuring the separation of the operation of the two pieces of legislation. I apologise to the House for that error. 
Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is a convention of Parliament even more so under MMP that parties support members’ bills to a select committee if the issue being raised in the bill has merit. Parties support such bills to a select committee so that the committee can investigate the issue and the public can have their say. 
The Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill highlights what was a very arrogant approach by the Labour Government when the bill first came into Parliament in 2001. It highlighted the fact that Labour was completely out of touch with the concerns of society back then. I appeal to the Labour Government members when they choose how they will vote on this legislation today to reflect on the wider concerns of society and decide to send this bill to a select committee. 
This bill is all about open justice in the very crucial area of family law. One could say that it is the most important area of law in New Zealand because it goes to the heart of what happens with families and what happens to their children when families are going through very difficult times and in particular when they are going through a family separation. 
This bill was last debated on 21 February 2001 and was defeated by the Government. It said that the issues raised about openness in the Family Court were not important and they had no merit. That is the only reason why parties would not support this bill to a select committee. Yet I have to say that progress in this area since that time demonstrates how vitally important this issue is to New Zealand and how petty the Government was back then when it failed to send the bill to a select committee. The open court legislation was the catalyst for change. The bill itself and all of those people who got behind it and supported the cause of more openness in this area of law created a momentum that reverberated right through the whole judicial system. It made people think debate and reflect on what is best for New Zealand. It made them think about the outcomes and the need for change the need for more openness in the whole family law area the need for greater scrutiny of what was happening in that court and the need for greater accountability and greater responsiveness so that the court could deal in a better manner with the people who were appearing before it. 
During the whole process of change—from 2001 until today—a number of people have made some very significant statements about the need for change in family law. The previous Principal Family Court Judge Judge Mahoney stated that the judiciary would be happy with whatever level of openness Parliament decided on in this crucial area. The new Principal Family Court Judge Judge Boshier is one of only a handful of judges who has the distinction of exercising discretion and exercising his power which already exists for family law judges to open his court to public scrutiny. He did that in Whangarei a few years ago. He was so concerned about the operation of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services he decided that the public should see what was actually going on in that department. I put on record that if there was openness in the area of family law one of the key changes would be better performance from the child welfare agency in New Zealand and an improvement in the fraught area of child abuse and all the negative consequences for children. Every jurisdiction that has opened up its Family Court has found that over time the department dealing with those areas improves its performance and as a result the rates of child abuse have been reduced. I say to the Labour Government that if it votes this bill down again then it will be condoning child abuse in New Zealand because here is an absolutely rock-solid way for this Government to improve its performance in this area. 
I would like to dwell on this issue for a moment in light of the appalling situation that we heard about in question time today. Concern was expressed about a mother who had abused a 6-week-old baby. As I understand it she is now on bail for the assault of this 6-week-old child. The Minister claimed that she did not know that the other two children of this mother who had been taken into care because the mother was deemed not to be fit were in such a disgraceful state that we heard today that one 2-year-old child weighed 9 kilograms. Can members believe that the level of starvation was such that that child’s weight was so light? The other child was covered in excrement. It is just an appalling and disgraceful story. The Minister reported to the House that she did not know; that she was not informed by her department of the state in which those two children were removed from the care of their mother even though her department knew that the Minister had to face up to questioning in Parliament and to public scrutiny. Are those the actions of a well-performing department? I say not and this Government should think long and hard about that. 
If there is another way for the Government to try to help to improve the performance of this department through opening up the Family Court then even if it is unsure about whether the Family Court should be fully open the Government should take the opportunity to allow this bill to go to a select committee so that a reduction in child abuse can be one of the outcomes it can be proud of having helped to achieve. 
The major reason to call for open court in New Zealand is to improve the future direction for children who have been involved in family breakdown. New Zealand has the dubious record of being the leader in fatherlessness in the Western World. Any sensible New Zealander would tell us that two good parents are better than one yet we have family laws that ensure that one of those good parents is alienated during a family breakdown. We have children who not only lose their family home they also lose their nuclear family and they are alienated from one of their parents. The problem is that most people unless they have been affected by this do not understand what has happened because the Family Court has been secret. If people speak out as we in this Parliament know only too well because of what happened to one of our colleagues then they risk severe threat and criminal prosecution. 
If the Family Court was more open we would see more parents choosing mediation we would see a reduction in the number of false allegations that are thrown around in the battle between parents over their children we would see fewer family break-ups to start with as they saw the troubles and tribulations that would be ahead of them and we would see the warfare that surrounds family breakdown reduce and better outcomes for children as a consequence. 
The Government will make some changes in this area through its Care of Children Bill. I say that the Government will end up regulating the Family Court. It will be more open but it will not be an open court. This Government should be very careful about voting this bill down when it has the chance to send it to a select committee and to act in the best interests of New Zealand. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 This bill would require Family Court sittings to be open to the public and enable any person to publish reports of proceedings. The current restrictions on public attendance and reporting are intended to preserve the Family Court as a forum where parties are encouraged to resolve their own differences wherever possible. 
As the House will be aware the private nature of the Family Court has been criticised in recent times. Continuing criticism of the court is a serious issue and risks undermining public confidence in it. Some of this criticism has unfairly labelled the Family Courts as secret and blamed Family Court Judges for that. This has been clearly detrimental to the court’s public image. Although openness in courts is a fundamental principle there are situations where other important principles also compete. The Family Courts are such an example. Decisions on the openness of Family Courts must take into account the need to maintain a forum where the frank discussion of highly personal matters can take place. Many matters involve private facts and material and parties or witnesses may be reluctant to give evidence in public. The law must not discourage people from bringing proceedings because of concerns about their personal affairs being publicly exposed or enable one party to force an unjust settlement by exploiting the other party’s concerns about public exposure. 
Disputes in the Family Courts often involve children and it is essential to consider how any changes may affect them. There is widespread recognition that the vulnerability of children means that they often require special protection. In its recent report the Law Commission confirmed the need to protect children from public exposure of court disputes in which they are involved. The experience of the Family Court in Australia suggests that allowing public attendance does not contribute in any meaningful way to greater openness of proceedings. The Family Court in Australia has opened its proceedings to the public since 1983 although restrictions on the publication of details that might identify the parties remain. There has been no reduction in litigation and there continues to be allegations of judicial bias and dissatisfaction voiced by some interest groups. 
I do not support this bill passing to a select committee as it does not strike the right balance between open justice and the needs of parties and children involved in family disputes. This bill states that its objective is to require Family Courts to be transparent and open. I agree that there needs to be some discussion on the best way to ensure transparent decision-making in family proceedings. The important question is how to achieve that while simultaneously protecting the interests of children and vulnerable persons and maintaining the Family Court as a forum that promotes frank discussion of personal matters. This question has been considered recently by the Law Commission in its report  
Delivering Justice for all: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals 
 and by the Government in the Care of Children Bill. 
In its report the Law Commission has come to a different conclusion from the one contained in the bill. The Law Commission’s report is the result of extensive consultation including public submissions and two discussion papers. In contrast to this bill the Law Commission does not support public attendance at all family proceedings. The commission considers that the general approach in the various family law statutes to public attendance represents a sensible balance and recommends that family proceedings that are currently closed to the general public should remain closed. 
The Law Commission does however make a number of recommendations aimed at addressing concerns about the transparency of decision-making in family proceedings. Its recommendations include: allowing accredited media to attend all family proceedings; removing restrictions on reporting of family proceedings so long as identifying information is withheld where proceedings involve children or domestic violence; and allowing the courts to permit people with a genuine interest to attend the proceedings at the request of a party. The Law Commission’s recommendations represent a significant shift towards openness for some family proceedings but this shift is markedly different from the type envisaged by this bill. 
The Principal Family Court Judge has indicated his support of the Law Commission’s recommendations. The recommendations are also largely consistent with initiatives in the Care of Children Bill. That bill extends attendance at guardianship proceedings by allowing people who took part in earlier counselling or mediation to attend hearings. The bill also allows other people to attend proceedings with the judge’s permission and enables wider publication of guardianship proceedings. Everyone will be free to publish accounts of Family Court cases so long as the identity of the families involved is not disclosed. 
The Care of Children Bill is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee. I understand that that committee intends to report the bill back with changes recommended to allow accredited media to attend hearings as of right and to enable parties to request that other support persons attend hearings. These amendments will bring the Care of Children Bill fully into line with the Law Commission’s model of openness. 
There are obviously a number of other family law statutes that need to be considered in light of the Law Commission’s recommendations. The Ministry of Justice is currently analysing the Law Commission’s report— 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It appears to me that the Minister is talking about matters that are currently before a select committee. The details of the Care of Children Bill have not been reported back to the House yet the Minister is standing here right now telling the House what is in the new bill. That is a breach of privilege. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for her contribution. If it is a breach of privilege of course the member has the opportunity to take the resultant course of action if she wishes to do so. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Ministry of Justice is currently analysing the Law Commission’s report and a formal Government response to the report is due in September. 
As a vehicle for law change this member’s bill is also fundamentally flawed. The bill contains a general clause to allow public attendance and reporting of proceedings. But the law about openness of family proceedings is contained in various Acts under the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The bill does not contain any consequential amendments that would need to be made to each of these Acts. Nor does the bill consider the wider impact of the individual Acts. For example under the Guardianship Act of 1968 and more clearly under the Care of Children Bill any decision must give priority to the welfare and best interests of the child. Stress associated with publicity can have harmful effects on children who are at the centre of disputes. 
The bill is also restricted to proceedings in the Family Courts whereas the rules in the existing law are not confined to those taking place in a Family Court. Under the existing law the rules remain the same if cases are appealed to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal. This bill would provide two different standards depending on which court the proceedings were heard in. For all appeals from the Family Courts the existing restrictions on attendance and reporting would remain. 
I welcome the opportunity for debate on how better to ensure transparent decision-making in family proceedings. However the policy and drafting of this bill are short-sighted and fail to appreciate the true nature of the issue. The Law Commission’s report and the Care of Children Bill are more appropriate vehicles for legislative change in this matter. For those reasons I do not support the bill going to a select committee. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The opening of the Family Court to public scrutiny is an absolutely essential reform if we are to live up to our open democratic traditions and if families in New Zealand are to get a fairer deal. I congratulate Muriel Newman on starting this debate in 2001. We are making progress but that was a disappointing contribution from the Minister. The Minister said to the House that the Family Court is not a secret court. Well why did the Government put me in the dock for 5 days? 
Government Members 
: Aw! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It did. If it is not secret then it is a pretty extraordinary thing that it asked for. 
The second claim by the Minister is not to subject the Family Court to scrutiny because it might be brought into disrepute. I say that the Family Court must be as open to scrutiny as any other taxpayer-funded institution and we must ensure that that court is accountable for the services it delivers to the New Zealand public. A secret court is a dangerous court. The Family Court wields enormous power—the power to separate children from their parents the power to take assets from one person and give them to another and the power to remove some of the most basic freedoms in society. Those powers must be subject to some check. The most important check of all is the one in respect of public scrutiny. It is not just important that justice is done but that it is seen to be done. 
The current secrecy in the Family Court creates an awful dilemma for this Parliament. The way in which our democracy functions is that our Parliament passes laws the public then observes the way those laws are administered in our courts they make judgments about whether that reflects the values of New Zealand society and then Parliament refines those laws. But if the Family Court is completely closed to public scrutiny how is the public to judge whether indeed it is reflecting the values of New Zealand society? We have cut off the essential loop by which our democratic structures in New Zealand operate. How can we make the assessment if only the judges and the lawyers who work within that environment know what the decisions are—even more so when we have such vague laws that simply ask that the court acts in the best interests of the child? The truth is we all have a different view about what might be in the best interests of the child. I happen to believe in and put strong values on parental rights in that respect. But how can we make the judgment as to whether those best interests are being served consistent with the public if the court is to be closed? 
There are three particular reasons why I think the court needs to be opened to public scrutiny. It is interesting to note the statements made by the Minister and by the chief social worker Shannon Pakura who said that opening up the Family Court will be bad because society will see what adults do to each other and what they do to their children. I take the opposite view. It is my view that by seeing what society does we have some potential to address those issues. I also believe that having a more open court will help the court function. People will be able to see what takes place and make judgments about whether they want to take their own case to the court. I would also argue that those who say that the Family Court being opened up will return us to hearing the salacious details of marriage break-ups are ignoring the fact that we now have a no-fault divorce law and we need look no further than Australia to see it working effectively. 
I challenge the next Government member who says he or she will vote against this bill to tell us where the evidence is that it is working so badly in Australia. Yes I accept there needs to be protection of identity and name but an opening of the Family Court is absolutely essential if families are to get a better deal in New Zealand. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 When the Family Courts were established over 20 years ago the vision was of a specialist court that would encourage parties to resolve their own differences wherever possible. It has been very effective and I want to put on the record that over 90 percent of all cases that come before the Family Court are resolved without the judge making the decision. To achieve this outcome the nature of the court had to be informal. Proceedings had to be heard in private so that families could air their differences frankly and openly and engage in a way that enabled the court to function effectively and so that people could make their own decisions. The courts were discussing private matters not secret matters and there is a distinction. Legislation passed since the establishment of the Family Court has been consistent with that philosophy. As a result the majority of family proceedings are closed to the public. Reporting generally occurs only in a restricted and controlled way. 
It is also worthwhile noting that Family Courts deal with a wide range of matters. Each type of family proceedings raises different considerations when deciding on the best way to achieve transparency in those proceedings. One general clause as is proposed in the bill before the House does not recognise the unique and varied jurisdiction of the Family Courts. For example hearings under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act are usually held in hospital premises. Hearings under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act will also be held in hospitals once that Act comes into force. Some of the proceedings are conducted in secure wards that have strict visiting protocols to ensure the safety and well-being of the individuals with mental illness as well as of the visitors and the staff. Public attendance is unlikely or practically desirable in any of these hearings. 
Another example is the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. Such proceedings often involve highly vulnerable people. In some cases these people are at risk of violence and find taking decisions to make an application for a protection order a huge challenge. A presumption of public attendance at such proceedings is likely to affect this finely balanced decision about whether to apply for a protection order and may actively discourage the potential applicant from seeking such a protection order. 
Family Court proceedings are more intimate and much more emotionally charged than other court proceedings. At the same time disputes heard in the Family Court almost invariably involve children or vulnerable people. The principle of open justice is important but decisions on the openness of the Family Courts must also ensure that vulnerable people and children involved in those proceedings have adequate protections. A balance needs to be struck between those two principles and this balance must be absolutely unique to the Family Court to reflect the nature of the Family Court’s work. 
In reporting its decision  
Delivering Justice for All: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals 
 the Law Commission provides a clear direction on the balance that it considers needs to be struck. The commission does not support public attendance at all family proceedings and recommends that family proceedings that are currently closed to the general public should remain closed. That approach is markedly different from the one in this member’s bill. The Law Commission’s recommendations offer more protection to the users of the Family Court system than the bill currently before us. Its recommendations are also based on public consultation and research. 
I do not support this bill proceeding to a select committee. This bill is a blunt and crude instrument. This bill does not take into account the true nature of the Family Court’s work. It does not meet the needs of those people who use the system. The Care of Children Bill and the Law Commission’s report are more appropriate vehicles for that legislation. And I want to tell that member who interjected that there is a distinction between private matters and secret matters. Private matters are matters within a family and that is where they should stay and not be used as some sort of proceedings for those who are more voyeuristic in their approach to life. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am sure that anyone who goes to court—any private citizen—would like to have his or her case heard in private because going to court is very stressful for any individual on either side of a case. Whether it is a Family Court matter suing over a civil debt or a criminal matter the stress on the parties involved is almost the same. I have been involved in acting for both sides in civil cases. People can be very very stressed about going to court and about what will happen to them in the courtroom when the other practitioner gets hold of them and starts cross-examining. Appearing in court is stressful regardless of what type of environment it is in. 
The Family Court of course has had considerable protection in so far as the parties are concerned over many years. The previous speaker referred to the reforms after the royal commission in the late 1970s and the new Family Court legislation in 1979-1980. Of course I was in Parliament at that time and I was involved in that legislation. In fact I resigned as junior Government whip over one aspect of the legislation at that particular stage so I am quite familiar with it. At that time the use of the Family Court was not as substantial as it is today. In those days one could get legal aid but there seemed to be some restraints on legal aid at that time and there were not that many Family Court cases. When we passed the legislation in 1980 we did so on the assumption that court matters would reduce. We assumed that there would be an improvement and a reduction in cases coming to the court because of mediation conciliation and such like. That was the premise on which all that was done. Yet today in the Justice and Electoral Committee we learnt that the number of judges has grown enormously since 1980 and this makes something of a mockery of our best intentions at that time. 
Since that time we have seen the growth of the Family Court jurisdiction helped almost solely by the ready availability of the domestic purposes benefit and legal aid. People are virtually encouraged now that if anything goes wrong the first thing to do is not to seek mediation or conciliation but to walk out the door get a lawyer get some legal aid and see what one can get from the other party. It is a tragic state of affairs. I read Dr Michael Basset’s comments on this issue from time to time. As he has said if the Labour Government of 1973-74 when introducing the domestic purposes benefit had known where it would take us today it would never have done it. But that of course is another story. It is relevant though to the vast increase in the use of the Family Court. 
There is no point in blaming the courts because the Family Court or any other court is only as good as the power given to it by Parliament. Any member of Parliament—and I refer to Dr Nick Smith the National Party member—has no reason to blame the courts for what they do because the courts only do what we in this Parliament tell them to do. When Dr Smith was a member of the National Government and he disliked the law so much he had the opportunity then as a member of that Government to change the law. He had many years in which to do it but he never did. 
It should be made clear of course that it is this Labour Government that is doing something to have some effect on the privacy provisions and the secrecy provisions of the court under the Care of Children Bill. However unlike the Labour Minister I cannot comment too much on that bill because it is privileged. 
New Zealand First will support this bill. We like to support bills especially members’ bills in principle to a select committee. We believe that that is the place where those matters can be debated more fully. Unfortunately the Justice and Electoral Committee which should be considering this bill in conjunction with the Care of Children Bill is coming to the end of hearing submissions on that bill so some of the real focus of this bill will have been lost. 
I congratulate the ACT member for putting this issue before Parliament. I think that as members of Parliament we should always remember: do not blame the courts for anything at all whether it is sentencing Family Court secrecy or whatever. Remember that the power is in our hands as members of Parliament to do something about it. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill. I want to state upfront that United Future is offering cautious support for this first reading but I want to signal that we have a range of concerns we want to see addressed during a select committee process in order to be able to support the bill beyond this point. 
The Care of Children Bill promised that it would deliver greater openness and transparency in the Family Court. We have a report from the Law Commission which has made a series of recommendations that appear to be more moderate than that proposal. I guess if we had the luxury of time United Future would have preferred to see how some of those policies were implemented over a year or two as to whether they sufficed or whether we did need to look at pushing the boundaries as this bill suggests. But that is not the case. 
We have the bill before us now and I think that like most members of Parliament United Future members over the last couple of years have been inundated with emails and letters and have had meetings in constituency offices with people who are angry and frustrated. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JUDY TURNER 
: When we concluded for dinner I was referring to the fact that lots of members will have experienced what I have experienced which is that they will have been inundated with emails letters and people coming to their electorate offices with real concerns anger and frustration directed towards Family Court outcomes. The call for a greater degree of transparency in the Family Court has been around for a long long time. The questions we are asked when we talk to those people are about why there is a need for such secrecy. People say they do not want their personal details kept private and unable to be scrutinised so I think that Mrs Newman has provided a great opportunity here for the people who do not feel that the Care of Children Bill gave them the opportunity they were looking for to present their concerns about the openness of the Family Court. 
We note some of the differences between the member’s bill and the Law Commission’s recommendations and I think that there is the kind of tension that will need to be discussed if we can get this bill passed through to the select committee. There are questions of how far we go and how we balance the issues of privacy so that the Family Court does not return to some sort of grimy  
Sunday Times  
exposé of everybody’s personal details but instead provides the sense of dignity that families desperately need when their lives have turned to mud—as has happened when most families are needing to access the services of the Family Court. 
What the public seems to be crying for is an exposure of the trends of rulings that are happening down at the Family Court. The complaint is that if we look at the trends and overall pattern of what is coming out of the Family Court there is real reason for concern. The truth is that we do not know whether those people are right or wrong—whether they are just reacting to their own disappointment at a Family Court outcome or whether they really have touched a raw nerve in relation to a real dysfunction that is going on in our Family Court system. 
Union of Fathers and groups like that have formed a cohesiveness around their very great distress at Family Court procedures and rulings. I think that that is long overdue even if there is just a half-truth in what those groups are talking about. We are talking about children’s access to parents to custody and to parental orders. They are serious matters that need to be well scrutinised. The public deserves to know that the Family Court system is above board that the rulings are fair and just and that we can have faith in the system. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens do not support this bill and will be voting against it at this reading. The Greens understand the desire of the public and those involved in Family Court proceedings to have greater transparency in relation to the court’s process and decision making. The Family Court makes extremely important decisions and it is appropriate that its decisions are available for scrutiny particularly if they are precedent making. But we believe that that scrutiny can be achieved without opening the court to public hearings in the way that other courts are open. 
The Family Court process is different from other courts. For example there is a clear public interest in the administration of justice in criminal matters as part of the social contract between citizens and the State. When a person commits a crime that person technically commits the crime against the State and not the victim of the crime. Citizens have in effect given over the responsibility to hold the accused person to account to the State for conviction and punishment but consequently are entitled to hold the court as a State agent to public scrutiny to ensure that that obligation is being met fairly and properly. 
The matters that come before the Family Court are quite different particularly in cases involving the care of children. Many of these cases do not involve any form of crime or misdemeanour. Rather they involve the deeply private matters of family relationships that have so broken down that State intervention is needed to resolve them. We believe that the public interest goes only so far as to ensure that the process and decision making of the court is sound but not so far as to enable the public to inquire into or have access to the details of people’s private lives. Therefore we do not support the opening of the proceedings to the public nor do we accept that a presumption in favour of openness to the public provides sufficient protection for the privacy of families. Such a presumption requires the continual surveillance of the court and its assessment as to whether the privacy of the parties involved is of sufficiently high value that the public should be excluded. 
This bill takes that presumption even further in requiring that only in exceptional cases would the sitting of a Family Court be closed to the public. In the view of the Greens that presumption cannot be justified. The privacy of the parties involved should be presumed to be of a high value and deserving of protection. Because of the nature of the matters that come before the Family Court we consider that a presumption in favour of the privacy of the parties and the children concerned is a better balance. There are already provisions in law that allow for the reporting of cases without personal details being revealed so in our view this bill does not significantly add to the reporting abilities around the Family Court. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee has considered the matter of the openness of the Family Court in the Care of Children Bill and will report back to the House with its recommendations on the issue. We believe that the select committee process on the Care of Children Bill has enabled the public to have its say on the question of openness of the courts. Given the nature of the matters that appear before the Family Court and taking into account the competing public and private issues the Greens cannot in good conscience support this bill. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is stated to be transparency and openness but unfortunately it goes a lot further than that. Despite what has been said in the House this evening it actually goes against the advice of the Principal Family Court Judge in two very material respects. First it assumes that the present environment is one of secrecy when in fact it is about protecting people’s privacy. And these are private and personal matters where the issue of privacy should be something that is subject to being supported by this Parliament rather than vilified. This is a civil jurisdiction as MetiriaTurei has just correctly pointed out. It is a matter between parties. It is not between the State and another party; it is between two parties. The State certainly does provide in respect of the Family Court and the law that surrounds it but essentially the law is about encouraging parties to settle matters between themselves but at all times directed to the best interests and welfare of children. That must be a question we have to ask ourselves—whether the best interests and welfare of children are in fact reflected in the kind of opening up of jurisdiction that this bill would entail. 
The second area where I think this bill goes against the advice of the Principal Family Court Judge is that he has said himself publicly that he did not want to see the Family Court become a modern-day version of  
Open Home 
 where neighbours could just pop in to see what was going on in their neighbourhood in respect of a family relationship that was breaking up. I agree entirely with his position which is why I do not support opening the court up publicly. I think it is a shame that this bill has come up in the House only a week before the Justice and Electoral Committee is due to report back on the Care of Children Bill and of course it would be out of order for me to mention what we will be reporting back in respect of that bill but I suggest that members should watch this space. There are changes that are going to be made to the law that will address some of the concerns that have been raised. 
Nick Smith in his contribution to this debate said that Shannon Pakura the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ chief social worker had expressed concern about opening up the court saying that the public would be horrified at what adults inflict on one another and their children. Nick Smith has made this comment in more than one newspaper around the country. He is reported as saying this in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 as he was the other day in the Christchurch  
Press 
. The trouble with his position is that he has completely misunderstood and misrepresented the position of the chief social worker. She in fact was saying it would be a good thing to open up some decisions from the Family Court so that the people could see and could be horrified at what adults inflict on one another. I want to put on the record that her position is one that I support. There does need to be some opening up but I do not agree with how far this bill goes. I think it is wrong of Nick Smith to comment on officials opinions without looking at what was said. She actually thought it would be a good idea because most New Zealanders would be appalled to find out what does still go on in some family homes today. 
If there was one message that I could give to separating parents—it does not matter whether the parents are married to each other what gender they are or what sexual orientation they have—it is to please set aside their personal and private interests the feelings of regret despair and grief that they might feel about the end of their own relationship and remember that as two adults they have an ongoing responsibility to an ongoing relationship with their child or children. They must set aside every issue they have with the other parent and reach an agreement that is in the best interests and welfare of the children. We would not need a bill like this if that is what every parent did. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to speak in favour of my colleague Muriel Newman’s Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill. This bill has been pending for a very long time; essentially since I came to Parliament in 1999. I remember Dr Newman meeting the distraught victims of the Family Court right back then and occasionally asking me for comment on some of the legal issues. 
I had never practiced in the family law area and I had no knowledge of it. I was quite glad not to because so many of the circumstances seemed so hopeless in terms of the unhappiness on both sides. But I have had to acquire a little knowledge and recently I made it my business to read the sequence of decisions in the case that saw a lesbian couple obliged to share the custody of their son with the father who had signed a contract to enable them to have that child. 
As I went through those judgements I became really angry—not at all of them and I will not name individual judges or set my view of family law up against individual parts of that saga. But suffice to say that as a lawyer I could not trace the principles through many of those decisions. I went to a very well-known text writer in this area a man who is regarded as one of the experts in family law and asked if I was missing something. I asked if there was something wrong because I had tried to follow the reasoning and I could not see that it was more than good intentions and discretion by the judges involved. He said to me that that was what family law was and that in many cases it was actually wrong to call it law. It is just people making their own consciences feel good using the discretions vested in them. 
That would not be possible if this were a properly open court. It would not be possible for the family law jurisdiction to be essentially so unpredictable that the number of cases that have to go to the Family Court beggars all expectations of someone like Dail Jones who was here when the Family Court was born. When New Zealand First’s Dail Jones was here as a National Party member the fond hope was that the informality the mediation jurisdiction the encouragement to settle the lack of fearsomeness and the user-friendliness would mean that there was far less litigation. What have we reaped? We have reaped the exact opposite—the unintended consequence of refusing to do justice and instead trying to achieve a feeling of virtue on the part of the judges. This is not law because the judges do not have to make it law when they are not constantly under scrutiny. 
I spent a little time talking to a United States lawyer who had been counsel in the Donald Trump case which we read about in detail here and again in Boris Becker’s case. She was here on an exchange and she pointed to what she thought was wrong—that because there is no publicity of these cases in New Zealand the incentives to settle are too inadequate. The prospect of having one’s dirty linen washed in public is a very great incentive to settle for the party who is most wrong who has been the greediest or the harshest. Her view was that the American public ended up with a reasonably good crude folklore understanding of family law principles whereas the New Zealand public never got that exposure. They did not have the cause célèbres—the cases that told them. 
We saw it with Dr Smith. Dr Smith was prosecuted and when the Family Court judges finally released the other side of the story another view was taken. If that had been available to the New Zealand public and to him right at the start he might never have had to do what he did. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 One of the speakers we heard on this bill before the dinner adjournment was Nicholas Rex Smith. Nicholas Rex Smith was the defendant found guilty of contempt of court in February this year for breaching the rules of this country. We in Parliament are in the privileged position of being able to change laws. Until we do we are bound by them. I think the lamentable conduct of Nicholas Rex Smith—Dr Nick Smith as he is known in this House—ought to be put on the record of  
Hansard 
 and I intend to do it now. 
Nicholas Smith was charged with contempt of court arising out of his conduct in Nelson in 2003. His conduct is referred to in the judgment which runs to 20 or 30 pages and thoroughly analyses the issues. He was properly represented by a Queen’s Counsel in that case and stated his case. New Zealand’s High Court found him to be in contempt; his conduct was contemptible. What did he do? He tried to influence court process. What did he do? He rang up individual litigants. 
The background to this case is that some parents had voluntarily given up custody of their child. The caregiver of that child had custody. Nick Smith had a visit from the parents who had changed their minds and thought that the decision of the court which they had consented to was wrong. He rang up the person who had care of the child and put incredible pressure upon her. What did he say? One of the things he said was: “Don’t you feel guilty for stealing [the mother’s] child?” He later denied making that comment. The court did not believe Dr Smith; it believed the person who received the call—the caregiver of the child. He did say: “Don’t you feel guilty for stealing [the mother’s] child?” 
He also said he was a member of Parliament which was the highest court in this land and that everyone was answerable in Parliament. He denied that statement in court. Did the court believe him? No the court believed the person who received the phone call. Dr Smith was accordingly found in contempt of court because he was trying to influence the process of the court. He went further. He did not just put pressure upon that poor person who was legally going about her business; he actually put out a press release. One reason the court did not believe him when he said he did not steal the child was that the media release he put out about the same time said that this case almost amounted to State-sanctioned child stealing. That was a disgusting episode. Members opposite ought to acknowledge that their colleague Dr Nick Smith behaved abominably and accordingly was found in contempt of court. His behaviour was outrageous and contemptible and accordingly he was penalised by the court. 
What was the response of the fine upstanding National Party members? When Dr Smith arrived back rather than say that his conduct was unacceptable they gave him a standing ovation as he walked into this Chamber. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Sorry not you— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believeMr Parker owes you a withdrawal and an apology. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order I have already withdrawn that comment. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I apologise for bringing you into the debate Madam Speaker. National members ought to be ashamed of themselves for giving a standing ovation to one of their members who had been found in contempt of court. 
I see that Mr Carter is now on the telephone to bring Dr Smith down to defend himself. Dr Smith should stand up and defend himself because his conduct was contemptible and was found to be in contempt of court. We who have the ability to change the law should of all people honour the law until it is changed. Dr Smith ought to be pilloried not just by this Chamber but by the press for his contemptible conduct. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 What an amazing contribution that was! The people who should be ashamed of themselves are those Labour Government members who supported by the Green party will fail to send this bill to a select committee in spite of its importance. I suggest that this bill should go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It has been dealing with the issues of openness in the Family Court for some months now as it has gone through deliberations on the Care of Children Bill. It is in a very good position to deal with the very important issues that this bill raises. 
When Chief Family Court Judge Boshier came in front of the committee he suggested to members that the proper vehicle to deal with the issue of openness was not the Care of Children Bill—all that can do is tweak the rules that already exist—but that the issue needed its own bill. Here is its own bill right now. We have heard from the Government that it wants to wait for the Law Commission to do something later on in the future. I say that that puts the issue on the never-never. We want an open Family Court to be debated looked at and looked into by a select committee right now. New Zealand deserves that. All those families out there who know the problems with the Family Court and who are victims of the Family Court and all those children who are suffering because of the Family Court need to know that Parliament is taking this issue seriously and will send this bill to a select committee. 
Under this bill judges will retain the power to control their courts—to essentially close the court on a case-by-case basis and to suppress the names and identities of individuals. But the whole being if one likes of the court is the presumption that it will change from being closed to being open. That is the key change this bill makes just as select committees used to be closed at one time until that presumption was changed and now they are open. That is simply the core change that this bill will introduce. 
The benefit is that we will see transparency in the whole family law area. We will see a reduction in the number of cases coming before the court. We will see a reduction in the cost to the taxpayer and the cost of legal aid in this very fraught area—in which as we know every year the costs have been increasing. We will see a reduction in the warfare that goes on between separating couples as they look ahead and say to themselves: “Shivers we can see the fights we will have in the courts so therefore let’s go to mediation.” At the moment those couples do not know. Many couples stumble into litigation because they cannot see what is in store for them. I suggest that if many of them could see the problems ahead they would opt to mediate. That means the warfare that children get involved in will diminish and the number of false allegations that are made in the Family Court will go down as well. 
A lot of has been said about the need for private affairs not to be aired in public. We know that Family Courts are very small courts. The number of members of the public who could attend would probably be just a handful. We are not talking about masses of people going along. In fact the Family Court is open for many of the cases it deals with and the judges told us that nobody ever comes and no media ever attend. I suggest that this is a red herring. The point is that if people have private affairs that they want to keep private and if the Family Court is open then they should sort them out in private. 
Today the Labour Government has the chance to do something right. It has the chance to send an important issue to a select committee to signal to New Zealand that it is taking this issue seriously and that it wants to do the best thing for the future of New Zealand. If it votes this bill down then it is signalling once again its arrogance and its desire and determination not to care about the issues that affect so many families and alienate so many children. 
I want the Minister to remember that if the bill is sent to a committee and we have a truly open court child abuse in New Zealand will go down. If for no other reason that Government should see that this is a very important mechanism to try to improve an area in New Zealand that is a shame to all of us. I urge the Government to send this bill to a select committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 I do not think that anyone in this House can think we have race relations in this country right. I do not think that anyone in this House believes or can think we have the treaty settlement process right. I do not think that anyone in this House can believe we are getting better race relations under current policy. I think we have a problem. 
I think the bulk of New Zealanders are a fair people who believe that yes where there have been historical injustices we need a process to address them correct them fix them and put them right. I think that that is what New Zealanders believe. But I also think something else. I think that it is a fundamental tenet of New Zealanders that they have a belief in fairness and fair play. They believe that every New Zealander should be equal before the law and that policy should be the same irrespective of a person’s sexual orientation religious belief or ethnic origin. That is one area where in our Parliament and with our successive Governments I think we have got New Zealand out of whack with New Zealanders’ basic belief in fair play. 
I also think that we have a problem between two visions of the treaty settlement process. One vision is that we go through and look at historical injustices and with goodwill on both sides we attempt a reconciliation. We look at what has gone before we establish the history and we attempt as best we can to fix it. Having fixed it we put it behind us and move on as one people under one law. 
The alternative vision is that the Treaty of Waitangi process goes on forever and a day and that the process itself is important under a partnership model between the Maori people the indigenous people of New Zealand and everyone else—so that there can be no ultimate settlement and that the Waitangi Tribunal process itself is without end. 
If I were a Government MP speaking to this bill I would be very careful when I considered the gross injustice that has been done to Maori people by denying them the opportunity of their day in court on the foreshore and seabed issue. I never thought I would see a modern Government for short-term political advantage denying a race of people its day in court and so I would be very careful if I were a member of the Government in suggesting that the ACT party has got it wrong on this issue or is somehow trying to foster bad race relations. 
Let me now turn my attention to the bill. We believe that we do no one any favours by pretending we have a big bag of lollies by throwing all the lollies up in the air and by establishing a quasi-judicial process that suggests if people turn up they might be able to grab some sweets. I think Governments have fanned high expectations that somehow at the end of that process there are riches to be had. I do not believe whoever is in power that there are riches to be had at the end of the claims process. 
We do people a disservice when we do not hear claims quickly and fairly and do not deal to them with some briskness. If we do not do that we are not treating them seriously. When someone goes before a court tribunal or judicial authority and we are serious about listening to that person’s concerns and settling them we do not hear those concerns and then think about them for years and years because they are too hard. No instead we apply discipline to ourselves. We know when we do that particularly in areas like this that no party will go away fully satisfied but let us have the courtesy to put a briskness in the process in order to show we are serious. On this side of the House the ACT party rejects the model whereby the process goes on forever and a day. 
Apart from the Labour Government's denial of Maori’s right to be heard in court we think the breaches are historical and should be dealt with as historical. So what we say in this bill is that all claims should be in this year. We can put in what Jill Pettis supports which is property-taking from Maori people in the 21st century by a Labour Government that saw 15000 people unable to get justice in a New Zealand court walk on this Parliament. They could not get justice in a New Zealand court under a Labour Government. We say that all claims should be in this year. 
We then say that we should apply the discipline to ourselves that all claims should be heard in 5 years. Then we should apply the second discipline that all claims should be settled in 10 years. Surely to goodness with the goodwill of the Maori people and with the goodwill of the Government we could do that in 10 years. World wars have been fought and won in less. Or will we say that no we see that process going on forever and a day because we do not have the fortitude to settle? 
Let us have a look at the process. In 2003 under the Labour Government how many reports were delivered from the Waitangi Tribunal? Seven. How many claims as at June 2003 were registered? One thousand and forty-two. Here is a statistic: in the 12 years since 21 September 1992 how many claims have been settled? Seventeen. 
Do members know the thing that bothers me about that? There is not a lot of money at stake. In those 12 years the settlements total something like $700 million. That is not a lot in the context of what the Government spends in a week. Yet we are sitting on the process for years and years and years. And can we seriously say that it is bringing our people together? No it is not. It is dividing us. 
I make a plea here to send this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee so that we as a Parliament can think about how we can provide justice with some briskness. Or are we saying that it is not all that important or serious so let us just keep kicking the claims to touch and leaving the claimants living in hope that one day their claim will be heard a report will be written and there will be a settlement? I think that as a Parliament and as a people we can do better than that. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 A tena koe. Te meatuatahimaku ki te mihi atu ki te iwi Maori te ao Maori e whakarongo mai ana ki eneikorero. Kore rawateneiKawanatanga e tautoko i te pire a Rodney Hide. 
[ 
Thank you. First I extend greetings to the Maori people and the Maori world listening in to these deliveries. The Government will never support Rodney Hide’s bill 
.] 
Today I rise to explain the Government’s reasons for not supporting Mr Hide’s bill. I want to tell Mr Hide very clearly that this Government Maori MP certainly is not going to enter into being very careful as a member of Parliament in not allowing Maori their day in court. I want to say to him that quite clearly he—an academic an intellectual—has not read the provisions of that bill. The reality is that my whanau and hapu look forward to making an application in the Maori Land Court and they have already prepared such an application. If there was no provision in the bill to make such an application they would not be so dumb as to do that. There are a few people around here suggesting that there is no provision in the bill for an application to the Maori Land Court. But it is not only to the Maori Land Court; it is to the High Court and it may very well go to the Court of Appeal. So the humbug and propaganda of misinformation being spread around by people like Rodney Hide are unfortunate. I think perhaps they should have looked at the bill more carefully as Gerry Brownlee has done—hopefully—and understand that there are provisions in the bill for my whanau and hapu to go to the Maori Land Court. 
I can say that we do not support the treaty claims going on forever and ever. Once again that is misinformation propaganda and humbug. I think and I acknowledge that all responsible New Zealanders including Maori recognise that it is a process that is finite. It may very well be that ACT’s existence in this House is finite—until the end of next year or until the next election. But surely we cannot compare that to the process prescribed in terms of treaty claims. 
This bill is Mr Hide’s third ill-considered attempt to pull the handbrake on the treaty settlement process—No. 3. Mr Hide’s bill seeks to bring it to a screeching halt before its time with no thought to the resulting pile-up. This Government wants the mutual process of negotiation and reconciliation to carry on. Like its predecessors this bill is misnamed as it will not result in the final settlement of claims. Rather it obliges the Crown to act within 5 years with regard to any findings or recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal. In an ideal world negotiated settlements would quickly follow tribunal reports but we know and he knows that it is not as simple as that. We do live in a complex world. Claimants need to decide who speaks for them and how they will work together. The Waitangi Tribunal cannot do that for them and neither can the Crown. 
This Government is in discussions with more claimant groups than ever before. We have achieved that by giving advice and assistance to claimants where we can and where it is appropriate—not by interfering in internal iwi decisions or by setting artificial deadlines. Mr Hide’s bill does not even talk about negotiations and I would have thought that when he talked about treaty settlements and time frames he would actually give some recognition to the importance of treaty negotiations. But this bill does not do that. Instead the bill obliges the Crown— 
Rodney Hide 
: Tell us about the foreshore and seabed. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: —I will tell the member about that later if he wants to listen—to act unilaterally. Governments tried that approach in the first half of the 20th century. I tell Mr Hide that we have already been down that track—passing legislation that granted some groups of Maori a few thousand pounds in full settlement as redress for the confiscation of their land without those payments even being discussed with the same people. As history shows us simply declaring something to be settled does not make it so. If this country is serious about resolving the claims of the past we should do that in a way that ensures both parties consider them resolved—not swept under the carpet for another generation to deal with. Negotiations can take a long time or a short time as the Crown and claimant communities work through the painful grievances of the past and the difficulties in exploring each other’s views before deciding whether they can accept each other’s position. There is also a great deal of technical work to be done throughout the negotiations to ensure that the rights of third parties are protected and to ensure that a settlement is unambiguously final and comprehensive for the entire claimant group concerned. Putting artificial time pressure on that stage would put the finality and ultimately the durability of the settlements at serious risk. And I can say that Mr Hide knows that. 
Once again Mr Hide shows no understanding of the difference between historical and contemporary claims. The Waitangi Tribunal is a venue for Maori not just to address the grievances of the past but also to air current issues. The Government might not always agree—and in fact does not have to agree—with the tribunal’s recommendations but it recognises the role that the tribunal has for Maori in balancing the different views of the treaty partners and proposing a way forward. In recent years the tribunal’s recommendations about the settlement process itself have been a very valuable tool. The tribunal’s recommendations have been endorsed by the Crown which has taken cognisance of them. Mr Hide’s bill removes the tribunal’s capacity to serve in that function. 
The Government is on record as stating that we believe that the vast majority of historical claims can be settled by negotiation within the next 15 years. I want to make that quite clear. The Government believes that the claims can be settled within the next 15 years but not in the fast-forward rapid way that is suggested by Rodney Hide. We are committed to that time frame and we are always looking at ways to improve the process for both the Crown and the claimants in order to help us achieve it. Mr Hide’s bill offers no ideas whatsoever as to how his artificial deadline of 5 years could be met. It gives absolutely no consideration to dealing with the inevitable mess of unsatisfied claimants and unfinished business that it will leave. This Government will happily consider any genuine proposal to increase the pace of settlements but not at the expense of their durability. 
We have already established a strong record of achieving settlements. This year we are aiming to have two bills that settle claims on the basis of fair final and negotiated settlements. They will be introduced into the House. We hope to sign two deeds of settlement in the coming months which will bring the total number of settlements signed by this Government to six. We are in discussions with more claimant groups than ever before and we look forward to the final settlement of their claims. Recently the Crown has recognised deeds of mandate for the important central North Island iwi of NgatiTuwharetoaTe Arawa Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare. Terms of negotiations have been signed with Ngati Manawa and also with Ngati Whare. Those claims which will eventually settle over 150 individual treaty claims will present their own complexities in terms of the size of those groups and the forestry involved. We will work through those issues as quickly as we can but we will be respectful of the pace that claimants wish to proceed at. We will do that in good faith and with high hopes of reaching a final and durable settlement. 
That is what genuine progress in negotiation is all about and that is the way to progress a settlement situation. It is durable—it will last—and sustainable. If we want to put the past behind us we should do so on the basis of genuine reconciliation. I remind the House that basically we all want that—genuine reconciliation—so that there is no redress further down the track no coming back for a second go. We do not want a rush job that will come back to bite us in the future. 
I do not believe that Mr Hide’s assertion that a deadline for settlement is necessary to ensure that the pace of settlements is increased. I do not believe that by forcing settlements into an artificial time frame we will have the outcome of reconciliation and better race relations. I do not believe that this bill will result in the final resolution of treaty grievances. Therefore this Government will not be supporting Mr Hide’s bill and it will not support it going to the select committee. Kia ora tatou. Tihei mauri ora! 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the member I make the point that there should be nobody standing around talking in the Chamber. Two or three members have done that in the last half-hour and it is disconcerting to the speaker. I remind members that the speeches are 5-minute speeches now. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I say right at the outset that National considers this bill to be very poorly drafted—to be of very very poor quality in its draftsmanship and indeed in the intent that goes with it. The reality is that the ACT party remains stalled at the beginning of the 1990s on this particular issue. There has been considerable history since that time as to how these things should be progressed. But I want to make it also clear that because of the intent and goodwill expressed in this bill and because of the idea that New Zealand cannot progress until as Dover Samuels just outlined for us— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Honourable. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —the Hon Dover Samuels—these matters have been dealt with then clearly it is a bill that the National Party will have to support. I found it fascinating that the Hon Dover Samuels could sit there and say that more time was needed to consult with Maori in order to get enduring settlements of issues they might raise before the Waitangi Tribunal. In many ways he is simply saying that the Labour Party has completely bought into the idea that the Treaty of Waitangi means that if people are Maori they are owed an obligation and if they are not Maori they owe the obligation. That is quite wrong. I ask Mr Samuels and his cohorts over there—and I hope Mahara Mita and Georgina will take a call— 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the member is well aware of the rule that members are to be referred to by their full names not just their first names. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is correct. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: At least that member knows why he is in Parliament. He has done nothing for the Pacific Island people but by gosh he has picked a lot of nits in this place. 
Let me say very clearly that the Hon Dover Samuels just told this House that more time perhaps up to 15 years is needed to discuss these matters with Maori. Well the Government is about to pass legislation that will take away the interests of every non-Maori in the coastline the foreshore and the seabed of this country and it has not consulted at all. I know that when that legislation goes through the select committee process those members opposite will go to Auckland Wellington and Christchurch but they will not go anywhere where someone might have a view that seriously disagrees with the Government’s position. 
Those members opposite are frightened and they are guilty men. Although they will stand in this House and say that Maori need 15 years to be consulted over this issue when it comes to something like the seabed and the foreshore Maori can get lost. They can go back to the wops. Maori can take what they are given. 
I find it a complete inconsistency that those members will vote against this bill tonight but will quite happily hold up their hands sometime in the middle of next year to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. They need to ask themselves whether this process is a genuine process. Are there two parties represented under the Treaty of Waitangi? Were rights conferred in that treaty on all New Zealanders or are those members going to hold on to the mistaken view that the treaty is something that belongs only to Maori? 
We support Rodney Hide’s bill. I see that Mita Ririnui is yielding; I am still on my feet so I will take the other 5 minutes. Mita Ririnui has disappeared back into the woodwork where he has spent the last 5 years of his political career. The simple intent of this bill leaving aside some of the silly ideas in it about a race relations council is to acknowledge that there are historical grievances out there that wrong was done that those issues can be dealt with and that New Zealand can move on. Dover Samuels and his fellow Maori MPs Mahara Okeroa and Mita Ririnui—all of them Irishmen I might say—want to make the issues last longer and longer because they do not care about this country’s future. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Mita Ririnui. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. An interesting issue has arisen. Mita Ririnui yielded to the previous speaker and in that circumstance the speaker who was speaking is entitled to continue. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It was not a yield. As Chair I never called. It was a good try but Mita Ririnui has the call. 
MITA RIRINUI (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The term “yield” is not familiar to me. The previous speaker the National Party spokesperson on Maori affairs gives a new meaning to the word “inconsistency”. Here we have a party that is claiming and saying publicly that it will extinguish all Maori rights and put the foreshore and seabed in public ownership—the same party that is going to extinguish the Maori constituency seats in central government and do a whole lot of other things to nullify the Treaty of Waitangi. He is making a big case of the inadequacy of face-to-face consultation which is something he will not do. His party will just do it. I notice that it is starting to backtrack on the issue of nuclear ships in New Zealand waters. How many more backtracks will we hear about? 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: Flip-flop! 
MITA RIRINUI 
: That is a good term and I suppose it will get rid of the treaty before breakfast. It is interesting how the sponsor of this bill stands up in this House and claims that the process is taking too long. In 2002 that member stood in this House and claimed he was NgaiTahu. Now he is telling us: “We’ve got our bit. The rest of you can get stuffed. You can get stuffed—we got our $170 million and there is more to come. The rest of you can take a jump.” He has his bit. That is what they call justice. 
As my parliamentary colleague the Hon Dover Samuels said in his speech this bill is totally unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the Government is already making considerable progress in negotiating timely comprehensive and final treaty settlements. We are in discussions with more claimant groups than ever before. It is not because we are forcing them to the table but because we are ready and willing to negotiate in good faith. The Crown and the claimants are focused on getting on with it. 
Dover Samuels outlined the number of settlements we are currently negotiating and we have signed up to a number of terms of negotiation agreements with central North Island iwi. In the time since we took over the Treasury benches we have completed six or seven treaty settlements and we are in negotiations with about 25 other claimant groups. That is really positive progress. 
The Office of Treaty Settlements has advised the Maori Affairs Committee that at this rate of progress we could possibly and should have dealt with all historical claims by the year 2015. That precludes the need for any legislation of this kind. In the last year the Government’s intensive work with the central North Island claimant groups has paid off. We will shortly begin negotiations with Te Arawa for the settlement of over 100 separate Waitangi Tribunal claims covering 40000 people. NgatiTuwharetoa is at a similar stage. Their negotiations will cover more than 50 Waitangi Tribunal claims and benefit 30000 people. I am talking about iwi in the central North Island only. 
The Government is putting in the groundwork at this end of the process bringing people together to negotiate comprehensive settlements that will result in the durable resolution of treaty claims not imposing arbitrary deadlines. Most of the settlements negotiated by the previous National Government were piecemeal—a mountain here a river there and some land somewhere else that probably belongs to somebody else—rather than looking at all the historical claims of iwi hapu and whanau. It achieved only three comprehensive historical settlements and one of those—the Tainui rivers and harbours claim—had big gaps in it. This Government has achieved six comprehensive settlements already as I said earlier. Mr Hide’s bill seeks to achieve with a blunt instrument what good faith patience and flexibility are already well on the way to achieving. While it will fail enforcing the time frame for settlement of claims will result in unfair poorly thought-out attempts to redress grievances and will in no way at all lay to rest the grievances we are seeking to address. 
One issue that is very important for this Government is that claimant groups do have the right to justice. They have to be able to explore all avenues of justice and the claims we have dealt with since we have been in Government have achieved exactly that. Kia ora. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
:  
A tena koe e te Kaiwhakawa koutou hoki e whakarongo mai ki tenei o ngakorero.Kei te tautoko nga mihi i mihi atu tena o tatou mema mai i Te Tai Tokerau. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and indeed to those of you who are listening in to this address as well as the others. I endorse the salutations that the member for Te Tai Tokerau extended to you 
.] 
On behalf of New Zealand First I take this opportunity to speak in this debate. May I say from the start that it should not come as any surprise to any member in this House that New Zealand First supports the notion of this bill being referred to a select committee. 
I can recall that in 2002 I alluded to the fact that the treaty had sadly become an instrument for divisiveness. That is particularly so within the political arena all of which has been irrespective of first adherence to the due process by the Maoriclaimants and secondly the justness and legal obligations as a consequence of that due process. 
Many of the outcomes from the settlement process have influenced the current thinking. It is timely that due regard be given to putting in place a time frame for the conclusion in that regard. However I offer a word of caution. The possible justness and endurance of any settlement must not be compromised for the sake of expediency. I believe that the time frame suggested in the bill in which claims should be completed suggests that we may compromise justness and fairness all for the sake of expediency. The bill suggests a time frame that I believe is not practical. Why? Because a high number of claims are yet to be considered; there are inadequate bureaucratic structures; insufficient resources; and there is a lack of or limited resources for claimant groups to progress their claims; plus there are political differences. It seems to me that I can add another issue which is the lack of political will—that is regarding the limitations on the value of the settlements. 
The sponsor of the bill has said that as a consequence of this bill New Zealanders can look to the future instead of always looking back. I remind that member that it is important to look back from time to time to ensure that particularly as a nation we do not condemn ourselves to repeating the mistakes of the past. I cannot overemphasise that point. Settlement is not only about justification and agreement to a claim. It also includes the process of negotiation as to how a claim can be settled. I suggest that therein lies the crux of the difficulty that the sponsor of this bill has quite rightly described. 
The bill also talks of a council of race relations. I am not sure about that proposal. There seems to be no reason why the proposed functions cannot be picked up by existing organisations and ministries if there were a case. A concluding thought is that for a large number of New Zealanders the Treaty of Waitangi is not merely a document to be condemned to the annals of history. This legislation will not prevent the treaty continuing to have life and meaning to many New Zealanders. The bill refers to: “equality between all races in New Zealand.” Clearly that confirms for me what a large number of our population not leastMaori are criticised for saying—that there is not equality. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I support this bill going to a select committee. I suggest that that select committee be the Maori Affairs Committee given the light workload that it currently has. It will also provide an opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have their say on this very important issue. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I consider this bill to be misinformed. It is based on a view that sees the Treaty of Waitangi as something to be dealt with and dispensed with and in its hurry to forget the past it would perpetuate enormous injustice. Its time constraint removes the power to negotiate from tangata whenua and puts decision making about fair compensation in the hands of the offender—the Crown. 
The legislation is deeply flawed in my opinion for psychological reasons and I shall explain that. Unlike some Pakeha I cannot claim that my ancestors have been here for six generations. Nevertheless for much of my life I have shared a common almost unconscious Pakeha anxiety: “What right do we have to be in Aotearoa?”. In our nation that anxiety has grown as Pakeha dominance of political and cultural affairs has lessened. The recent re-examination of history by scholars such as Belich Walker Salmon and Binney have threatened our simplistic views of the past. Waitangi Tribunal hearings and reports have made public a number of tragic stories previously kept private. 
Pakeha have long had a tenuous position in Aotearoa. We probably underestimate today the psychological effects of the fear of war in many early Pakeha communities. With the constabulary’s invasion of Rua Kenana and his peaceful community in 1916 those fears would have largely come to an end. The place of Pakeha in New Zealand seemed settled. Growing awareness of the injustices of the past along with a growing Maori population has again threatened the peace of Pakeha in this country. It was a peace built on a myth of exemplary race relations and “One New Zealand.” Most Pakeha seemed simply unaware of Maori continued agitation for their rights to political economic and cultural self-determination. 
Today no Pakeha is unaware of those demands and it creates in us a difficult cognitive tension. We know that the past has been characterised by gross injustice. We know that as a result Maori feature in the worst health education and imprisonment statistics. Many of us do feel guilty about that and we resent that guilt. So one way of dealing with our difficult and painful past is to return to historical amnesia by saying that that was a long time ago we should get on with it or to try to put a time limit on the treaty and pretend that we can deal with it get over it and put it in the past. Those are desperate measures. In fact I believe that until Pakeha are able to feel certain about our place here we will continue to show signs of anxiety defensiveness and intolerance always underlined by the question: “When do I as a Pakeha become tangata whenua?”. 
I believe that Pakeha do have a right to be in Aotearoa. The Treaty of Waitangi confers that right upon us. Maori have a right to be here as tangata whenua. Pakeha have a right because we signed a treaty giving us that right. But that right carries an obligation. It means that we do not get to be here 100 percent on our own terms. That means that we do not need to feel guilty for the past or for the actions of others but we do need to take responsibility for the future. I believe that we dishonour ourselves as Pakeha New Zealanders if we allow injustice to continue or if we perpetuate injustice as I believe that this bill does. 
It is time for Pakeha to secure our place in this land and our relationship with its indigenous people. However if we fail to honour the agreement that confers on us the right to be here if we continue to locate our emotional intellectual and institutional homeland on the other side of the planet I sometimes wonder whether we really do belong here after all. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The sponsor of this bill wants to transform himself from a perk-buster into a statesman. That is as difficult in my view as a caterpillar metamorphosing itself into a beautiful butterfly. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Crayfish. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Whatever. It is totally unobtainable. The sponsor of the bill is trying to get a conveyor belt conception of Maori claims. We line up the tins of spaghetti brand them put a label on them—and the conveyor belt keeps going. That aspiring statesman absolutely refuses to acknowledge that there are two partners to any treaty settlement. One is the Crown and one is the claimant. One of the key issues is durability. Durability means that there must be a relationship between the Crown and the claimants. The claimants come from a context of absolute mistrust with regard to the Crown’s actions. Anyone who wants to support this bill along with the shadow Minister of Maori Affairs for the National Party—a big shadow—fails to realise that other very important factors contribute to a treaty claim. If claims are to be durable and if they are to be accepted not only by the Crown but also by the claimants then there is a process. The process is built on a tradition of mutual trust. 
The claimants already have to accept that their claim is about 0.5 percent of the original value of the claim yet the claimants who are Maori are prepared to go through that process. They are prepared to lay aside a whole range of betrayal historically to reach an end point. The end point is that they too want to get on with the business. They too want to participate as equal citizens in New Zealand society. They too want to realise their own potential. If we are to accept the bill as sponsored then may I add that the whole issue will be breached on the essential principles of being able to trust each other. Under this Government treaty claims are geared towards not only having that trust but also an outcome that is based on collective agreement and negotiation. 
The member opposite is prepared to sponsor a bill that takes no credence of the claimants’ role in the whole negotiation process. I know that the sponsor of the bill claims NgaiTahu ancestry. I do not know whether NgaiTahu will be overjoyed about that. In fact I doubt it very much. Anyone can claim an ancestry but tikanga Maori says that if people are prepared to claim an ancestry then they are prepared to commit to the best process—the best process with regard to what this Labour coalition Government is prepared to do. 
On that basis there is no time line with regard to settling the settlements with expediency. It is about the outcome being the best relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown. If we are to achieve that then there is absolutely no way that this side of the House will support a hastily scripted poorly drafted bill as sponsored by that member who wants to transfer himself from being a perk-buster to a statesman. Sometimes the gap is too large. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 United Future can support the intent of this bill which if we understand it is to bring full and final settlement of outstanding claims. Although when we talk about full settlement I think most people in New Zealand would understand that there is no way in the world that this Parliament or the taxpayer could afford the full settlement. We are grateful to Maoridom as it accepts settlements that are much less than what the full settlement should be but accepts them as a full settlement. 
We as a party would certainly welcome the full and final settlement of outstanding claims. My colleague Murray Smith as our Maori spokesperson has constantly urged the Office of Treaty Settlements to speed up the process to a large extent by providing more resources for those involved in the treaty settlement process. However we do not urge the speeding up of the process by shortcutting the process as the speaker before me Mahara Okeroa said so well. The process must be dealt with properly if it is to be full and final. 
As someone who has sat through parts of that process in Tauranga Moana where some of the hapu have gone through their treaty claims inquiries I have been amazed at how much history we learn as we go through this process. It will be a great asset to the nation in the future as we will be compiling throughout this process the true and accurate record of what has occurred in this country over the last 150 years. 
We understand and many of us within United Future also understand how many non-Maori can empathise with those who grow impatient with a process that began initially in 1975 and in real earnest in the 1980s. This process began over 20 years ago and for many of us it seems such a long time. There is an impatience in New Zealand to see it completed but it would do all of us who are non-Maori good to consider how long many Maori have been waiting for the correction of these breaches of the treaty. They are the ones who have been victims of those breaches and in most cases they have been waiting for as long as 150 years. That is a very long time and when we see how many times Maori have had to come to the courts and to this Parliament seeking redress I think another 15 years will not be too long if we are able to fully and finally settle these issues once and for all. 
I believe the attitude we need to take in this House and across New Zealand is to look out to 2040 when we will celebrate 200 years as a nation and see that by that time we have fully and finally settled those treaty claims and are moving on as a very multicultural and harmonious society. The answer to our problems in New Zealand is not a law change but an attitude change and that is definitely needed throughout our society if we are to have a future together as a people. 
United Future cannot support this bill because the approach it recommends to resolve the issue of slow resolution to claims is not in our opinion the appropriate one. We believe the Office of Treaty Settlements should set targets and dates for settlements and goals because that is an important part of achieving those goals. The office should then receive adequate funding and resourcing to realistically enable it to meet those goals and time frames but to set those time frames in statutes as proposed by this bill would be wrong and would achieve very little. 
Clauses 6 and 7 are about establishing a Council of Race Relations to carry out specific functions. Many of those things would be commendable accomplishments for our society but they are the kinds of inquiry and discussion that would be undertaken during the constitutional inquiry proposed by United Future in response to the foreshore and seabed debate that has arisen this year. Our proposals for a constitutional inquiry include a discussion of the role of the treaty in New Zealand in the 21st century after all outstanding claims have been settled. That would be a more productive approach than having a legislatively mandated council as set up in this bill because it would ultimately result in us resolving the question of a constitution for our nation. We believe that is the way forward as a country and one we will continue to lobby and press for. Therefore United Future will not support the first reading of this bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have listened with interest to the debate on this bill. One of the most interesting speeches of course was from the person who is almost my benchmate Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party. He said that this bill was prompted by a kind of psychological complex. He seemed to be saying that people who do not want to recite and relive trauma have something wrong with them. Mr Tanczos may have come from an era that believed fervently that if one let it all hang out somehow it all came together but in fact much more modern and very recent wisdom is that the net effect of wallowing in misery and of examining one’s navel whining and refusing to take things seriously is not cleansing and healing. It simply means what common sense would tell us: that we become more depressed. 
There are five good reasons why this bill is needed and there is also a good reason why part of it is not needed. I have authority from my leader to say that we do not need a council of race relations—and we certainly do not. I turn now to the first good reason that this bill is needed. The tribunal is discredited. It is not good for New Zealand to carry further on down a path whereby a semi-judicial body embarrasses our entire judiciary. The bill that was before the House late last year allowed the tribunal’s chairman essentially to take judges off a case when he did not like the conclusions they were coming to. Which tribunal of integrity allows that? Since the tribunal talked about the Holocaust there has been no serious public respect for it. Victoria University’s latest book on this topic  
The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History 
 by Giselle Byrnes essentially states the tribunal is making up history to suit its agenda. It is a serious problem when one of our judicial bodies is accused of making up history to suit its politics. 
The second reason that this bill is needed is that the treaty claims process is corrupting Maori. Some of the best young brains in Maoridom are now very skilfully employed in working out how to take wealth from others instead of making wealth. The culture of making instead of taking is what really distinguishes the wealthy from the poor. Those people are not stupid; they are not unnaturally grasping. They are simply responding to the incentives that calculating politicians on the left have been giving them. In that I include former National Party members who got into that—the Doug Grahams of this world. If someone was sitting there as a young Maori or even as an elderly Maori and was offered money for nothing except making a complaint what else would that person do? 
The third good reason for this bill is that the process is deferring the date of Maori self-reliance. I remember a Westpac survey from a few years ago and there was one finding that was never published. When Westpac surveyed savings intentions it found that almost no Maori intended to save. One of the reasons was that Maori thought they did not need to save because somewhere down the line Father Christmas would turn up with a treaty settlement. That is not healthy for any people. 
The fourth good reason for the bill is that these claims cannot do justice. It is fatuous to say as the  
State of the Nation 
 television programme told us that the settlements are only 1 percent of the value of the claims. That is like saying that my dad who missed out on the family farm was ripped off by millions simply because he had to go and do something else. 
The fifth reason for the bill is that the settlement process is simply a reason for new grievances. Limitation periods appear in the law of every sensible culture. I think the longest period I have ever seen is in the Turkish situation which can go back 40 years. No one anywhere in the world can build a stable foundation on a pattern of exploring grievances that go back past living memory. 
The sixth reason why this bill should be grasped by both sides of the House and why Maori in particular should vote for it may be described as “grab it while you can”. The tide has turned. There will not be the stupid encouragements to further grievance. Maori should get settlements while they are still being offered because ultimately most New Zealanders Maori and Pakeha are sick of the process. They see no future in it; it is time for it to finish. Let us end it before it goes septic. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am very disappointed in some of the comments that have been made by members on the Opposition side of the House. I think the intention of this bill is quite clear: it is to try to short-circuit the treaty negotiations process. Although Mr Hide makes every effort to be a statesman he continues to expose himself as someone who really is quite cynical about a legitimate process that New Zealanders need to go through if we are to deliver justice to tangata whenua. This bill is poorly drafted and it is flawed. I want to compliment our United Future colleagues on the speeches they made because I think they identified an important aspect of the treaty process: the generous spirit of Maoridom in accepting some of the compensation which falls well short of what true compensation should be for tangata whenua in terms of the loss of land and resources. I think it is an indication of good faith by tangata whenua the Maori people of this country that they are prepared to negotiate something that is truly short of the real compensation that should be considered. 
I think that if there is good faith on both sides on the sides of those who negotiate on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of Maori the timetable of 10 to 15 years that this Government has identified is a realistic goal for achieving settlement of the historical claims. I believe that the intention of the bill is to play upon some of the frustration that exists out there in the community. I accept that justice delayed is justice denied. There is a feeling within the community that the process has been too long but we are also talking about a period of nearly 160 years since the treaty was signed. Over that period of time significant injustice has been experienced by Maori. I think that most fair-minded New Zealanders would understand that to resolve those sorts of injustices up and down this country over 160 years will take time and that for the sake of future generations due process should be allowed in order to achieve fairness and sustainable resolution of grievances. 
I believe that the Government is doing a good job in terms of resolving the issues in negotiating with tangata whenua in relation to reasonable settlements and in acknowledging that the compensation falls well short of a realistic assessment of the loss of resources and land. I support the Government’s programme. The indication in relation to treaty settlements of the process lasting up to 15 years is a more realistic timetable than what has been proposed in this poorly drafted bill by someone who has just taken the leadership of the ACT party and is trying very hard to transform himself from a perk-buster a caterpillar into a butterfly as my colleague previously mentioned. The transformation is not succeeding and I am afraid that Rodney Hide’s true colours continue to show. I oppose this bill. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is very clear that the Labour Party has a view of Maori as a people beholden to the Labour Party no matter what; as a people whose vote it can take for granted no matter what; and as a people who the Labour Party believes will vote for it as long as it dangles a carrot out no matter what. I have to say that the Labour Party is in for a wake-up call both ways because it has trampled Maori rights by denying a group of New Zealanders the opportunity for their day in court. I do not know how members of this Government can stand up and say that they have to go through due process when halfway through judicial proceedings the Government rushed through legislation to deny Maori their day in court. They talk about the proper process of the tribunal and claimants and what happened with the oil and gas finding— 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Canned! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Canned and they killed it dead and where were the Maori warriors from the Labour Party then? If those Labour Party members were honest with themselves if they were honest towards the people of New Zealand and if they were honest with Maori they would be saying: “Yes we can’t go on forever and a day; let’s settle on a time frame.” 
I am happy with New Zealand First’s suggestion to move this bill to the Maori Affairs Committee. I think that is a good idea. I am happy with Taito Phillip Field’s suggestion that it be made 15 years. I think we should send it off to a select committee consider whether we can do it in 15 years and think about what resources would be needed to do it so we can pick up Taito Phillip Field’s proposal of 15 years. I agree with United Future which said: “Yes we need a time line.” But the members said that they needed to think about it. Well that is what the select committee process is for—having a think about it. 
I say this: I did not agree with anything that Nandor Tanczos said. No I could not agree with him that we are sort of psychologically unbalanced and that I am somehow a Pakeha with a tenuous grip hanging on to New Zealand. No I could not agree with the Greens. But I do agree with Taito Phillip Field; let us have a look at 15 years. I do agree with New Zealand First and with the Maori Affairs Committee. 
I tell the United Future members that I know they had their instructions from Helen Clark this morning not to vote for this bill. I heard the speech and United Future members were in favour of it. This is what they said: “We agree with the intent of this bill. We agree with time lines but Helen Clark has said in her own godly way that we can’t vote for it.” So United Future members come down here like lambs to the slaughter put their heads on the voting chopping-block—chop chop chop Helen Clark has spoken! But I say this. Who are we doing the favour to by dragging this process out forever and a day? 
Hon David Carter 
: No one. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Absolutely no one. Larry Baldock said he looked forward to the year 2040. 
Jim Peters 
: What year? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: 2040. 
Hon David Carter 
: He won’t be in Parliament. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh he will not be in Parliament next year. United Future will be long forgotten. He said he looked forward to 2040 when this would be all settled and behind us. Well I tell him this. For what possible reason could he think given his Labour Government’s woeful performance that these claims will be settled by 2040? None. He is making it up. But I tell Larry Baldock that it is not too late. Vote for it and we will look at a time line of 2040 if he wants the public to have a say. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 9.05 p.m.