Volume 627 Week 93 - Wednesday 22 June 2005 
Volume 627 Week 93 - Wednesday 22 June 2005 
[Volume:627;Page:21819] 
Wednesday 22 June 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Viet Nam—Commission on Petitions and Aspirations National Assembly 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing the House that the members of the Commission on Petitions and Aspirations from the National Assembly of Viet Nam led by the Hon Le Quang Binh are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Government Spending—Proportion of GDP 
1. CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What has been the trend in Government spending as a proportion of GDP in the last 6 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The trend overall has been downwards from 33.1 percent in 1999 to a forecast 30.1 percent in the current year just ending and it is forecast to rise again to about 32 percent of GDP over the forecast period. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Which areas of Crown spending have increased and which have declined? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The areas of big increase above the general rate of growth are health and education where spending has increased faster than GDP—that is teachers and nurses and doctors. The declines have been in social security which has dropped from 12.4 percent of GDP in 1999 to 10.1 percent in 2004. Core Government spending is down from 1.6 percent to 1.2 percent of GDP and debt-servicing costs are down from 2.3 percent to 1.6 percent now. The Government remains clear about its priorities in terms of health and education unlike Dr Brash who yesterday promised more in health and today started prevaricating about that. 
John Key 
: Is not the Minister actually misleading the public again as the correct base should in fact be the year 2000 when core Crown expenses were actually 31.4 percent of GDP; and further when we make allowance for the non-discretionary payments such as excluding social welfare in fact core Crown expenditure has been steadily rising and what is more it is yet to rise even further if Labour gets a third term? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thank the member for his confidence on that last point. On the other points that he made he is now reduced to arguing that we do not have a small public sector relative to other Anglo-Saxon countries. Now for an Auckland member of Parliament to think we are still an Anglo-Saxon country strikes me as pretty strange in the first place. Secondly we do not normally compare ourselves with the United States; and thirdly he is right: some areas of Government spending have gone down. Those are debt servicing and spending on welfare benefits and that has enabled us to spend more on health and education and indeed in the last term of Government on law and order. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers and noting also that we have an ageing population what is the percentage that the Government believes is adequate for long-term health expenditure as a percentage of GDP and when does the Government expect to reach it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As to the last part of that question I do not think one can make a sensible prediction about what is adequate because that depends on forecasting technology as much as anything else. What I do note is that there is an extraordinarily close relationship between spending on health as a proportion of GDP and per capita GDP. New Zealand lies exactly on that trend line. The only major international outlier is the United States which spends a great deal more on health but with no better outcomes than New Zealand achieves. 
Keith Locke 
: What has been the trend in overseas development assistance spending as a proportion of gross national income (GNI)—I ask about GNI rather than GDP because GNI is more the international standard—over the last 6 years; is it true that spending has gone up only from 0.23 percent of GNI to 0.27 percent of GNI in this Budget; is it true that that figure puts us in the bottom quarter of the OECD; and how can New Zealand stand proud in the international community with that record? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are actually above the weighted average. We are also on the international ranking above our ranking in terms of GDP per capita. For us to lift spending to 0.7 percent would take approximately an additional $630 million per year which is certainly somewhat less than the cost of the Green Party’s tax proposals. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: In the Minister’s view how well understood are the expenditure trends he has outlined? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is fair to say that they are poorly understood and have usually been grossly misrepresented by the confusion of core Crown spending with total Crown spending. Total Crown spending includes for example spending on the Air New Zealand share purchase the creation and success of Kiwibank State-owned enterprises and Crown trading entities. Some day perhaps the National Party may understand that. 
John Key 
: Is not the basis of this patsy question from the Government today just a feeble attempt to try to cover up the fact that the Minister’s Budget was a complete and utter failure that most of his caucus personally blame him for the fact that they are now in a terrible position and that all he is trying to do is muddy the waters and the country will not buy it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No no and no. But the member has one thing right: it is tax or it is a cut in health a cut in education and a cut in law and order which is why Dr Brash is now starting to backpedal in interviews about the National Party’s spending plans. I note that in the last four polls Labour has averaged ahead of National but of course National is so excited to be higher than 21 percent in the polls. 
Kyoto Protocol—Prime Minister's Statement 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Kyoto Protocol: “There is good money to be made from the Kyoto processes and I am confident that many New Zealand businesses will prosper as a result.”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because there are good business opportunities for those who develop leading edge environmental technologies. Members can ask Meridian Energy. 
Dr Don Brash 
: When was the Prime Minister first advised of revised projections that indicated New Zealand would have a carbon credit deficit rather than a carbon credit surplus in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In the lead-up to the consideration by Cabinet of the officials’ report. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that given the rapidly diminishing number of countries that will have any carbon credits to sell to New Zealand New Zealand may have to look at earning credits by investing in projects to reduce Third World greenhouse gas emissions; if so has anyone in her Government considered what it would actually cost to earn in that way the 30 million tonnes of credits we may now require? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously the Government will take advice on the best way of meeting its Kyoto Protocol responsibilities. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government notified the United Nations climate change secretariat of New Zealand’s changed carbon credit position on 15 April this year but did not notify the New Zealand public until last week; if so why did she try to hide such a major change in New Zealand’s circumstances from the New Zealand people? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have that particular piece of paper at hand but my understanding is that the UN was advised of the level of emissions for a current year not projecting forward. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm whether the advice that she seeks will come from the same person who advised that the country would be in $500 million surplus as against a $500 million deficit; is the same person going to give the advice to the Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is quite a sizable group of officials that has advised the Government for a long time and it has consistently advised Governments from the time of the honourable Simon Upton that New Zealand would be in a net credit position. It is important to note that while Don Brash does not know whether there is a global warning problem Tony Blair considers it to be so significant that he is having a row with his best friend President Bush about it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that under the carbon trading system that was set up under the Kyoto Protocol firms that are part of the solution in addressing climate change with clean technologies have the opportunity to prosper and is that not good for both the climate and the economy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes that is certainly true. One could give the example of how participation in the Kyoto processes has made renewable energy projects like wind projects economically viable when they otherwise would not have been. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the Prime Minister commission someone to study what it may cost to help countries like Indonesia to reduce their emissions by 30 million tonnes to meet New Zealand’s Kyoto obligations so that New Zealand taxpayers may have some idea of what the true price tag of Kyoto compliance during the first commitment period will be before they go to the ballot box later this year? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Any work the New Zealand Government commissions or pays for will be focused on how New Zealand meets its share of the responsibility for a serious global problem that is identified as such by the science academies of all G8 nations and which is a subject that is leading the debate at the G8 summit at the present time. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister think it was appropriate for Minister Pete Hodgson to attack those who warned last year that New Zealand would face a Kyoto liability and to say their claims were “at the bottom end of credibility” and that those making the claims were “obsessive” and “incapable of dealing with the facts” or will her Government continue to lash out at those who dare to criticise its policies? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The advice all Governments—National Governments and Labour-led Governments—have had on this issue is that there would be a net positive position. That was confirmed in an answer to a patsy question from Nick Smith to Simon Upton in 1995. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is there any fact or any argument that would convince the Prime Minister that Kyoto was bad for New Zealand and should be dumped or is it enough that it just makes her look good on the world stage? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: New Zealand prefers to be on the side of seven of the eight G8 countries on this subject. We note that just as the National Party gets its nuclear policy written in Washington so it gets its Kyoto policy written in Washington. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it acceptable for the Prime Minister to assert totally incorrectly that our policy on any subject is written in Washington? That is totally without foundation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When the Prime Minister answered the question she did address the question but that comment was not relevant to the answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is against Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings to allege that a member or a political party is under outside influence and that was exactly what the Prime Minister alleged in her answer. She should be asked to withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank you Mr Hide. I have ruled on the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: All the billboards are written overseas. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is that a point of order— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: All the billboards are written in the United States— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Sorry? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh yes they are. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance in this matter but Gerry Brownlee has a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not acceptable to us that you simply rule that something was out of order and not require it to be withdrawn. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled that it was out of order— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: But it stays in the  
Hansard 
 record. You are allowing a comment that was outside the Standing Orders to remain on the record. Now that is quite inappropriate. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The fact that a comment is withdrawn does not withdraw it from the  
Hansard 
 record. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be far more cost-effective to invest in domestic no-regrets types of greenhouse policies with concrete environmental benefits as promoted by United Future rather than to write a cheque to Russia to buy a few credits or to Indonesia to earn credits at even greater cost? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not personally aware of the no-regrets policy but I am happy to speak to the member. 
Oil Prices—Analysis of Impact 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What analysis if any has the Government done on the impact of rising oil prices on New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Ministry of Economic Development officials regularly monitor the price of New Zealand’s crude oil imports and also New Zealand prices for petrol diesel and other oil products and report those prices and trends to me. In the current energy-modelling work carried out by my officials the oil price assumptions being used are considerably higher than the 2003 energy outlook and reflect current thinking. Although Treasury is not currently undertaking any analysis on the impact of rising global oil prices on the New Zealand economy each economic forecast that Treasury prepares incorporates all the information available at the time including the most recent developments in oil prices. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister stand by his ministry’s view: “It does not foresee a resource-driven crisis in oil supply in the foreseeable future.” given today’s statements by the National Australia Bank that there is considerable opportunity for the oil price to exceed $60 a barrel and by OPEC that it has “limited means to tame the market as most producers are already pumping flat-out”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The advice that I have received does not quite back up what the member is suggesting. It is that there are two main factors around the current very high oil prices. One of them is in the area of current supply issues—actually getting oil out of the ground in some places where it has already been found. The other factor has to do with what might be described as the global geopolitical situation—areas that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade would be more aware of especially in the Middle East—which is certainly hampering some supply. 
Larry Baldock 
: Has the Minister seen the statement printed in the  
AA Advocate  
that the end of a world based on cheap oil was nigh that oil production would reach its peak within a few short years that we would be obliged to radically rethink not only the global economy but the capitalist ethos itself and that the Labour Party was the only other party to acknowledge the fact of peak oil though it could not afford to acknowledge how close it was for fear of scaring the markets; if so would he consider that the author of those statements Jeanette Fitzsimons would be a suitable Minister of Energy for this country? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Picking the first and last questions no. 
Tariana Turia 
: What strategy does the Government have in place to inform the public of the issues related to oil dependence and what risk management strategies are being developed to reduce the impact of peak oil? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A person would have to not read the papers or look at television not to be aware of the fact that at some stage—and there is clearly a debate over when—peak oil will occur. I know that the International Energy Agency has a range of forecasts. I think its mid-range forecast is 2028 to 2032 and its worst-case scenario is 2013 to 2015. So there is a range of forecasts. Clearly the agency’s optimistic scenario is even further out. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does that reply indicate that the Minister has now revised his prediction that the best estimate of when oil supplies will peak is 2037; if so does he base that revised estimate on the position of the International Energy Agency which has changed its position from saying that 2037 is a mid-point to saying now that the peak will be some time between 2013 and 2037? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member—albeit I am sure with good intentions—has misinterpreted those figures. Even so I think the general feeling is that there are some better figures than those of the International Energy Agency. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When will the Minister introduce energy performance standards for motor vehicles to protect people from buying vehicles that will be too expensive to run in the future as provided for in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of steps to be taken before that happens. But I think people should be warned—people should be aware—that the price of fuel will in the longer term continue to go up and that looking at alternative sources of fuel would be a good idea. If more members followed the habit of the member’s bench mate and used bicycles that would help as well. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What has the Minister done—or what if anything is he planning to do—to fulfil his responsibilities under section 7(d) of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have that section of the Act with me at the moment. Being a Minister in charge of dozens of Acts I cannot recall every particular section immediately. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table section 7 of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act which requires the Minister to promote “practices and technologies that further energy efficiency energy conservation and the use of renewable sources of energy …”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would there be any significant savings if for example the Greens did not have a member of Parliament—namely Rod Donald—living in Christchurch yet having an electorate office in Nelson miles away from where he lives to which he freely and gaily travels at taxpayers’ expense? 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That matter is outside the scope of the original question. 
Rod Donald 
: I have not had an electorate office in Nelson since 1999. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is an interesting point of information but the question was outside the scope of the original question. 
EDS (New Zealand) Ltd—Government Grant 
4.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What reports has he received on the progress made in meeting agreed objectives following the provision of a Government grant to Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and what do these reports indicate? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 I have seen a report from the  
New Zealand Herald  
that describes the Government’s $1.5 million investment in global services company EDS’s Best Shore programme as “pretty shrewd”. In March 2003 the Labour-Progressive Government announced a partnership programme with EDS to ensure that it would develop a major client contact and software development centre here in New Zealand. The funding was dependent on EDS creating 360 new information and communications technology jobs in New Zealand over 3 years. In the last 2 years up to the end of May EDS had already created 279 high-quality sustainable jobs and approximately $28 million of extra revenue up to December 2004. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Why does the Labour-Progressive Government believe that partnerships with larger companies should be part of its economic development policies benefiting all regions including that represented by Mr John Key? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: New Zealand relies on just 160 companies out of a total of 300000 in New Zealand—or 0.053 percent—for over 80 percent of our entire foreign exchange earnings. That has and does put our economy at risk especially if a whole industry sector such as agriculture or forestry suffers any major setback. Without supporting the development of New Zealand businesses including larger companies like EDS we will not sustain let alone improve our living standards. 
Mark Peck 
: Why would any Government want to work in partnership with any large company? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In discussions that I and the Government have had recently with leaders of many European nations that have very impressive growth records—Norway Finland and Sweden to name just a few—we found that they work with all companies but particularly they partner the large and innovative companies in their economies because they believe that those companies lift all boats in the economy. That is our experience too. I have to say that if the two members who criticised this move Mr Rodney Hide and John Key ever got near this Government—or any Government—then that kind of innovative development would cease forthwith. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Why would the Government work in partnership with any large company? 
Hon Members 
: We’ve had that one. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be quiet. Would the member like to rephrase his question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. To err is human; to forgive divine. Is there any reason— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Sorry there is a point of order now and I know what it is—off we go. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No you do not—unless you are clairvoyant Madam Speaker. When Mr Robson sat down after the honest part of his question it signified that his question was over. We do not allow people a second try on a second question when they have so absurdly got it right the first time round. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. You are quite right. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a new point of order. It is quite often the case that to get a satisfactory answer we have had to ask the same question twice three times and four times and every time we do that it is deducted from the number of questions that we have. The Hon Matt Robson had finished his question it was clear to me that he felt he had not had a satisfactory answer and I fail to see why there should be one rule for Government MPs and another rule for Opposition MPs. He had his question he asked it and it is now up to the Minister to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a new point of order. It is not against the Standing Orders to ask the same question twice. So I will ask the Hon Jim Anderton to reply to the question. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: This Government works constructively with all industries and companies in New Zealand in the interests of the economy and people of this country which is why this economy is now more successful than at any time in the living memory of most people in this House. 
Employment Relations Act—Union Member Payments 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Was it the Government’s intention when the Employment Relations Act 2000 was passed that collective agreement settlements such as that between the Public Service Association and the Ministry of Social Development that provides for a $1200 one-off lump-sum payment only for union members would be encouraged? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The Government’s intention in passing the Employment Relations Act was to provide flexible legislation that would allow the parties to negotiate fair agreements in good faith. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the $1200 lump-sum payment to Ministry of Social Development employees who are union members is not connected to the pro-Labour anti - tax cut campaign currently being run by the Public Service Association? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Has the Minister seen any proposals for changes to the Employment Relations Act? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. I have seen a proposal to scrap the Employment Relations Act followed by a statement that the business community is broadly happy with the Employment Relations Act followed by a statement that the Employment Relations Act will be repealed in its entirety. All those statements came from the National Party. It is just another flip-flop from National but we are all getting used to them by now. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that it is fair and reasonable for a trade union to negotiate a one-off lump-sum payment and if he does accept that why is it not fair for a group of non-union people to negotiate a similar-type arrangement? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Employment Relations Act provides for collective and individual agreements. Just as there can be those on collective agreements who get a little more than those on individual agreements so it can be the other way round. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What does the Minister say to allegations that that two-part arrangement with $1200 paid to Public Service Association members now and $350 paid to them and others who joined the union after the settlement date is nothing more than a thinly veiled action by the Labour Party to fund part of its election campaign? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I say “baloney”. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a serious point of order. The Minister might not be aware but a group of non-union people are not allowed to negotiate on their behalf. They would have to form an incorporated society join a union or pay a bargaining fee. I asked the Minister whether he thought that that was fair—the emphasis being on fair not what they can do. Clearly he does not understand his own legislation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is actually not a point of order. Does the member wish to ask a supplementary question? 
Peter Brown 
: I feel that I asked the question that he should have endeavoured to answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He did address the question. I listened to it. He may not have done it satisfactorily which is obvious. Does the member wish to ask another supplementary question? 
Peter Brown 
: I am conscious that it will come out of our allowance. However if the Speaker allows me the discretion to ask an extra one— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If I give the member a discretion I give it to everyone and then I am in real trouble. I shall ask the member whether he wishes to ask another supplementary question. 
Peter Brown 
: I shall ask another question. I will be in trouble with my colleagues but never mind. Does the Minister think that it is fair that non-union people cannot negotiate a collective arrangement in any way shape or form even for a one-off lump-sum payment? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There was a lot of debate about that as it went through the select committee and the Government decided that those who were to negotiate collective agreements were unions. That is the policy and that is the Act. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document that clearly shows the connection between the Labour Party this excessive payment and its re-election prospects. The document widely believed to be the Labour Party manifesto is known as the  
PSA Journal 
 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
State Housing—Recent Developments 
6.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent developments if any have occurred in relation to State housing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 On Monday the Prime Minister and I launched a book called  
We Call it Home 
:  
A History of State Housing in New Zealand 
 which documents over one century the importance of public investment in the provision of housing for low-income New Zealanders. That is why this Government has reintroduced income-related rents which benefit 57000 households; provided funding for up to 9000 new State homes; funded modernisation of housing community renewal energy efficiency Healthy Housing and rural housing programmes; and provided funding for partnerships with community organisations to build more houses. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How does the Government’s approach contrast with other approaches that he is aware of? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It appears that others have not learnt the lessons of history that this book relates: the market does not always meet the needs of low-income people. Housing policy in the 1990s was a simple-minded aping of the market as 13000 houses were sold and tenants were left with market rents which helped drive one in three children into poverty by the 1990s mid-point. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What would be the result if an alternative market-based housing system were introduced that ignored the lessons of history as set out in this book? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No one should make any mistake: if a future Government were to abolish income-related rents we would see a crisis in housing for low-income New Zealanders and a dramatic rise in child poverty. We know this because those policies were introduced in the 1990s by the then National Government and National would do it again to pay for its tax cuts. 
Apples—Australian Market Access 
7.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: Does he consider that New Zealand has a dispute with Australia over its almost 85-year ban on the importation of New Zealand apples; if so why did he not initiate formal dispute settlement procedures at the World Trade Organization? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: Yes. As the member states New Zealand has had this problem for over 84 years including the entire time that Lockwood Smith was Minister for International Trade. The Government has taken the unprecedented step of raising this issue at the World Trade Organization Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures which meets next Wednesday. I note this is the first time a New Zealand Government has ever formally raised any issue against Australia at the World Trade Organization and that the National Government of Dr Lockwood Smith certainly never took that action. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When just 9 days before the federal election last year the Australian Government rejected Biosecurity Australia’s draft approval for the importation of New Zealand apples why did he not realise then that the dispute was simply a political issue to the Australian Government and initiate dispute settlement procedures then? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The dispute most certainly is a political issue. There is no scientific basis at all for the exclusion of New Zealand apples from— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why didn’t you do something then? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That member had 9 years and his Government did absolutely nothing. This Government in 7 days’ time for the first time will take this case to the World Trade Organization—something the National Government never had the gumption to do. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Will New Zealand remove its support of Australia’s leadership of the Cairns group? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No that is one of the demands that the Australian Access Action Group made out on the forecourt this afternoon. I noticed that Dr Brash did not respond on that at all. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did you say? Nothing! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Frankly we will not do that and Dr Nick Smith should take his medication and listen because I am giving the answer now. That would damage the Cairns group as a whole— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Every time any member challenges Government members they get nasty and personal. The record is very clear. I have not taken any medication for many many years. I do not think I have even seen a doctor in the last year. That is how personal and nasty the Government has become. If the standard is going to be that when there is an interjection they can make those sorts of references then I could make reference to the Prime Minister’s childlessness and to Lianne Dalziel’s drunken spell in Hanmer Springs. We could go a long way but the deterioration in this House and in its standards would be such that they would go into the gutter. I suggest that it is time you made a ruling on that and said that those sorts of personal insinuations are inappropriate. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Interjections are of course permissible but the Standing Orders state that they should be rare and reasonable. That member gets very excited and constantly chips across the floor while sitting as he does just a couple of metres from where I am. It was under that provocation that I told him he needed to settle down and take medication. It was not particularly personal. It is something I would say to any Opposition member who becomes overexcited. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank you both.  
Hansard 
 will record that the member who raised the point of order is known for his interjections also. Of course interjections should be rare and reasonable and any response should be within the bounds of the Standing Orders. I remind members of that both in their interjections and in their response to interjections. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think that your ruling quite deals with this issue. What we had was a statement that is frequently thrown across the House from both sides of the Chamber which has not been perceived in the past to be anything that is of great notoriety or to be defamatory. It was then followed up with the slinging of a couple of accusations that are pretty serious. I know what it is. Basically the two old parties are behaving in the same way because they are worried about their polls and the fact that neither of them will get within a cooee of getting into Government by themselves at the next election. But it should not be part of your job Madam Speaker to allow that sort of thing to go on purely because they cannot get used to not having power by themselves. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As I said in my ruling I have reminded members of the requirements of the Standing Orders and I expect them to abide by them in the future. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am still raising the same matter. This matter has been drawn to your attention earlier Madam Speaker but I really do think you should think about it. Just ruling that something is not satisfactory is not the way that Speakers have normally dealt with such matters. Frankly I think that the statement by the Minister did contain an implication that he should be asked to withdraw and then Mr Smith should also be asked to withdraw his two personal allegations. If you were to do that it would be a signal to the House that there is a line and I think that both the Minister and the member who raised the point of order have both clearly crossed it. The statements were made in a point of order. Members cannot make unparliamentary statements when raising a point of order and I think that Mr Smith would acknowledge that he did so. I am sure that if the Minister were to withdraw his statement Mr Smith would withdraw his and then we would be able to get on with question time. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: And I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: To both comments? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise both to the Prime Minister and to Lianne Dalziel. I would note though that I think this is about the 20th— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is all that is required. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is about the 20th time that that accusation has been made across the House. Trevor Mallard did it twice yesterday and Phil Goff has done it regularly so it has been responded to under provocation. But I unreservedly apologise both to the Prime Minister and to Lianne Dalziel. I think the House would be a lot better if we kept to the issues. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I wish to make a personal explanation in line with the statement made by the member. The inference I took was that I had been admitted to the hospital in Hanmer Springs for drunkenness. That is a complete falsity. I have never been admitted to an institution for any purpose let alone for alcoholism. It was an appalling suggestion to make. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm the following: that this question No. 7 from the National Party today is in fact the first primary question it has asked on this issue this year; that New Zealand First has asked several questions on this issue including recently shortly before the announcement of the World Trade Organization action; and that this is just one further example of blatant opportunism and plagiarism on the part of the National Party? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The National Party is well known for both plagiarism and opportunism— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for the National Party. I missed the first part of the Minister’s answer. Would he please repeat it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not recall having heard a question from the National Party on this topic this year until today when a march on Parliament was organised. I also have a record here of what Dr Smith said when he was the Minister and that was that we should deal with these things without resorting to World Trade Organization action. Obviously that is a blatant contradiction of what he is pretending in the House today. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What does the Minister have to say to those apple growers who will not survive another 3 years while the Government purports to take this case to the World Trade Organization and why did the Minister not take a case at least in 1999 when he had the opportunity to start proceedings on this matter which has been going on for 80-odd years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In relation to 1999 as I recall it National was in Government supported by ACT and neither party said anything about the issue at all at that time. I think every member of the House agrees that the Australian ban on apples which has lasted 84 years is totally unsustainable unjustifiable and against science. The real question we need to address is how to change it. No Government has succeeded in doing that to date. But clearly there are two ways of doing it. The first is by taking the matter to the disputes settlement process which I am informed would probably drag it out for another 3 years. The second is to address it after the compliance case between the US and Japan that is before the World Trade Organization. With the Australian High Commissioner promising this morning a result from the import risk assessment within months that may yet be the quickest way to resolve this dispute. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why does New Zealand not take retaliatory action against Australian imports of agricultural produce? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Again that is the sort of suggestion that I think some of the firebrands are putting out in public. Clearly it is not in New Zealand’s overall interests to engage in a tit-for-tat policy on market access. That would also be contrary to our principles of free and fair trade and would put us in breach of the obligations that we are asking the Australian Government to honour. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it not correct that the application for apple access that his Government will be discussing at the World Trade Organization Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures was initiated by the National Government in 1999 and that National took both America and Canada to dispute resolution at the World Trade Organization and won both cases; and why does this Government not get on with settling this dispute instead of just producing more talk? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is all a little bit rich. I have here a statement made by Lockwood Smith in December 1998 promising that the issue would be settled within a year. He obviously did not achieve that although no doubt the honourable member did his very best for the country. But he now is demanding from New Zealand an action that for 9 years the National Government itself utterly failed to take. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement made in the House by the Hon Jim Sutton on 14th June: “I have consulted with the leadership of the New Zealand apple industry and it supports the actions being taken.”; if so who was the Hon Jim Sutton talking to and how does he explain the approximately 700 people standing outside Parliament as we speak protesting his lack of proper action on this issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government deals with a whole range of business and agricultural interests in terms of access to Australia. By and large the reports that we have had back have been very supportive of the Government’s action. I think the pipfruit growers—the main body rather than this action group—have been supportive of the fact that this Government when no other Government has ever before taken World Trade Organization action has actually done so. I recall a statement by Kerry McDonald from the Australia - New Zealand Business Council on radio the other day that was also very supportive of the tough but responsible action this Labour-led Government was taking in this area. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What issue was so pressing that it required Jim Sutton to be elsewhere today instead of meeting hundreds of apple growers here at Parliament or was he just following Helen Clark’s lead when she believed it was more important for the Prime Minister to meet with Shrek the sheep than thousands of New Zealanders on the foreshore hikoi? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Jim Sutton has always had the courage to front up. As it happens he has a programme of some months’ standing including two major speeches in Christchurch today. The member if he wishes can consult the Minister’s office to find out how long those functions have been on the Minister’s programme and the importance of those functions. That is why he was not there but the Government was there and it was doing something different from the Opposition members: it was telling the truth. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes—would the Minister withdraw and apologise for the last statement. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that there has not been one question from the National Party this year on this issue and that after a series of questions from my colleague Dail Jones the Minister was moved to go to the World Trade Organization; that being the case why on earth would that industry ask Don Brash to speak at its rally? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: From the best of my memory I confirm again—and this has not been contradicted by the National Party—that I do not think the National Party has asked any questions on this topic this year but if that is not correct perhaps Lockwood Smith could indicate that fact. In terms of Dail Jones Dail Jones is a fine person but it is a little unfair to suggest that he was the reason we took this matter to the World Trade Organization. However I welcome his support. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that the apple growers wanted Jim Sutton to front up and he did not and that they also asked Winston Peters to speak and he was not there either? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer the first part of the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for you. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Minister is not responsible for where I speak. I and the people are. He therefore should be asked not to answer that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did indicate that. [ 
Interruption 
] I have ruled on the point of order. The Minister may address the first part of the question but not the second. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just allowed Winston Peters to ask why the Minister thought that the apple growers would ask Don Brash to speak. You had no problem with that. You ruled that to be in order. If that is the case how can it be that when I asked the Minister who was out on the forecourt about what went on there that got ruled out? Why can we not just have some consistency in the rulings? Either the question that Mr Peters asked was out of order—and if it was then mine was—or if his was in order so too was mine. Please point out the difference between them. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: As I recollect it the Minister was asked whether the National Party had asked him any questions this year. That is quite different from asking him whether somebody else spoke somewhere else. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s not correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I thank the member. I understood the question not to say that but I am happy to look at  
Hansard 
. I understood it was a general question but the specific question was asked by you. I have asked the Minister to respond to the bit he is responsible for but not to the other part. And I will look at  
Hansard 
 on the other. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been down this chute before whereby you look at  
Hansard  
and I turn out to be right. What happens then? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not recall that. I will get back to you and if that is the case I will rectify it. I do not recall the question being asked and there is no way I can verify that at the moment. I ask the Minister to please address the first part of the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am sure that the people out there did want Jim Sutton to be there. Unfortunately the people at the open traceability session of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production conference and at the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science annual convention also wanted Jim Sutton to be there. He is a very popular fellow and he could not be in two places at once. 
Marriage Arrangements—New Zealand Entry Criteria 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Do immigration officials take into consideration future marriage arrangements when deciding whether to approve entry to New Zealand under any entry criteria? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that Immigration Service policy takes into account future marriage arrangements when deciding who can come to New Zealand where that is relevant. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that members of the Somali community are complaining to immigration officials that their daughters have no one to marry as their tradition prevents them from marrying non-Muslims or even those from other Somali tribes; and does he believe that the Immigration Service should be accommodating the principles of discrimination social segregation and denial of intermarriage by way of allowing fellow Somali tribe members into New Zealand on those grounds? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No and no. 
Tim Barnett 
: How has the Government demonstrated its commitment to improving border security? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That question had nothing to do with the primary question or my supplementary question. I am talking about criteria for the allowing of entry. I am not talking about matters of terrorism or danger to this country. I am talking about appropriateness which is a totally different matter. I therefore believe that the supplementary question should be ruled out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. It was too broad given the specific nature of the primary question. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Given that the Minister will not have had time to get detail on the question asked by Mr Peters I ask him whether he has yet received any reliable information or indeed any information at all to substantiate the claim made under parliamentary privilege by Mr Winston Peters that New Zealand citizen Omer Ali— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] Quiet Robbie. Good boy. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is my point of order. Sit down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please sit down. What is the point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The member is raising a point of order that he knows is totally erroneous outside of the Standing Orders and not appropriate in respect of this question by way of a question in the House. He should not be allowed to do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Hon Matt Robson was not raising a point of order—he was actually asking a question. We will have the question. Then when we have heard the full question I will rule whether it is within the context. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We know where the member’s question is going. He has a very simple mind—anybody can read it. The reality is that he will ask about other issues I have raised in the House that have no bearing on the appropriateness of allowing intermarriage exclusivity in a tribe and to no one outside the tribe. That is the issue that is being asked of the Minister. The member’s supplementary question is definitely outside the ambit of what I asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. He has reminded me on occasions that I am not psychic and to my knowledge no one in this House is psychic. I think we should allow the member to finish his question then we will be able to determine whether it is in the scope of the primary question. I have already ruled one supplementary question out but I want to give the member the courtesy of being able to finish his question. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Madam Speaker do you wish me to begin from the beginning or just take up from where I was interrupted? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please would the member give his question in full in the light of the comments that have been made. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: That New Zealand citizen Omer Ali had been a police chief under Saddam Hussein and that Mr— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was right after all. The member intended to ask about two cases that have no connection to this issue whatsoever. Otherwise my next supplementary question would ask why the member became a hugger of paedophile Jim Peron when I raised the issue in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes the member’s question does not relate to future marriage arrangements. I am sorry. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point I was making is that I am to finish the question that it is related and that that cannot possibly be judged until I give the whole question. As you said Mr Peters has many problems but being psychic is not one of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this. I am sorry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister believe that family reunification policies were designed to accommodate the denial of intermarriage and to promote social segregation; if so why? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The criteria for family reunification are set down in policy. From what I can see there is no attempt to do the things that the member is accusing someone of. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What will the Minister do to stop the multiplier effect whereby 50 refugees have brought in 334 family members who are themselves entitled to bring in more family members; and does it not concern him that his research shows that 80 percent of those people are still on a benefit after 5 years? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We were talking about Mr Robson’s questions so how can one allow this question which has nothing to do with future marriage arrangements but which concerns those who are already family members. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The Minister himself talked about family reunification and if supplementary questions cannot pick up on what the Minister said what is the point of them? Maybe that is what the Government would like. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is right. The Minister will please address the question. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Government under its international obligations allows 750 refugees to come in per year. This is something that has been going on over many many years which was actually supported by the National - New Zealand First Government of 1996 to 1998. There is also a quota for people to achieve family reunification as well. One of the things that people recognise is that having family members here helps people to settle properly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why of all things is the Minister now trying to include New Zealand First in his fiasco when he knows full well that the Tampa refugees did not come in under original UN recommendations at all but at the behest of himself and Helen Clark and therefore his so-called defence of his failed actions will not be successful by adding my name to it? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I never mentioned the Tampa refugees. That member did. I do know that in the period when that member was Treasurer 750 refugees were brought into the country each year so people will be starting to ask questions about why this is suddenly a big issue for the New Zealand First Party. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Review of Interim Results 
9.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What percentage of students who applied to the NZQA for a review of their interim 2004 NCEA results had their final results changed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Nine hundred and thirteen results were changed as a result of the review process. This represents .05 percent or one-twentieth of 1 percent of external standards sat. Of course just about all those who apply for a review when they get their booklet back—as they do in New Zealand unlike in other countries—on 913 occasions out of the 1.9 million they found an incorrect adding up of marks and in those cases of course just about all of them had the reviews accepted. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware of problems with the assessment of level 1 Technology where in some schools 100 percent of students failed the external assessment and when they resubmitted their portfolios for reassessment 70 percent of them had the result reversed and they subsequently passed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member had asked a question about that I would have come to the House with the information. The member asked about reviews which is quite different from reassessment. 
Hon Bill English 
: Would the Minister concede that if it is the case that where 100 percent of students failed an assessment and on reassessment 70 percent of them then passed this would be just another piece of evidence that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) does not provide students with fair and credible assessment and when will he own up to that and do something substantial that will restore the credibility of NCEA assessment in the eyes of parents teachers students and the wider community? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that NCEA Technology level 1 has had considerable problems right from the beginning and over a period of 3 years especially around the external examinations for it. If the member has not caught up with that in the last 3 or 4 years I am very surprised. 
Stephen Franks 
: What advice did the Minister receive before he decided not to refund New Zealand Qualifications Authority fees to students affected by the scholarship debacle when Mr Benson-Pope earlier this year told the House that it was under consideration? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I make two points. Firstly when people enter scholarship they do not pay an additional fee; it is part of the NCEA fee. Everyone whose results were changed as a result of resubmitting or reviewing were given a full refund—if there was any marked change. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm what he just told the House which is that he has known about problems with level 1 Technology assessment for 3 years and still at the end of 2004 it was such a shambles that where 100 percent of students were failed 70 percent of them then passed on reassessment; and why did he not do something about it sooner instead of sitting on his chuff for 3 years and leaving those kids without a pass after a whole year’s work despite teaching from excellent teachers who thought they knew the standards and are now totally confused? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As has been the subject of previous discussions—I think Brian Donnelly brought it up in the House probably a couple of years ago—there has been— 
Hon Bill English 
: You have still done nothing. How many years does it go on for? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think the member should have a discussion with the member next to him as to one of the solutions for his problems. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You ruled earlier today that personal comments of that kind should not be used in this House. The Minister should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I think that that goes both ways really—with the interjection and with the response. So I would ask both members to stand withdraw and apologise and then we will start again. The interjections made across the House provoked the answers. That is the point really. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have on occasion used unparliamentary language here and then was willing to withdraw and apologise if that was what was required. But I said nothing that breached the Standing Orders. I did not use any unparliamentary language. I simply interjected in a way you did not like. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Madam Speaker I ask you to reflect on whether asking a member to get advice from the member sitting next to him is in fact unparliamentary. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Exactly. I do not regard it as unparliamentary in the sense that it offended the Standing Orders but given the comments that have been made previously about exchanges across the House I do regard both those comments as being designed to provoke the response they got. Therefore to ask someone to stand and apologise seems to me to be the most appropriate thing to do at this stage so that we can start again. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect this House will be a thoroughly antiseptic society if those sorts of rulings stand from hereon in. All that the member was advised to do was to take advice from his colleagues which might help him and he has now been asked to apologise. Plainly those of us who have been in the House for some time understand that certain nuances atmosphere and mores operate here that are unique to this society. If we are going to kill those off then frankly the House will not be worth coming to—even though people want us to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any help—please. I do not need any help on this. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I simply seek leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You seek leave. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the examination results from 1999 when I was the Minister of Education that show there was none of the bunkum and problems that have been caused by this Minister. That will get the record straight. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It does not actually deal with the point I was making. I take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point but the House is obviously not as robust as it once was. I have asked the member to withdraw and apologise please—this member already has—so that we can then continue again. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well Madam Chair I am not going to withdraw and apologise— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not the Chair; I am the Speaker. 
Hon Bill English 
: Madam Speaker. I am not going to withdraw and apologise. You have no basis for asking me to do so. I have been here 15 years and when I breach the Standing Orders I withdraw and apologise and I have done so on a good number of occasions as have most members. I am not going to apologise for an interjection and I think you are making a mistake to set that standard in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled. I would then ask the member to leave. I have made a ruling on this and the member obviously does not agree with it so I ask him to leave please. 
Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is quite reasonable to ask what Standing Order Mr English breached. That Mr English simply interjected by saying to Mr Mallard: “And you did nothing.” does not seem to me to be something that is highly offensive to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 140/7. Now can we please continue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The problem we got ourselves into here—and with respect it is your entitlement to make the ruling you have with regard to Mr English but I have to say that I think it is extraordinary as was the requirement for Mr Mallard to apologise—happened when a leader tried to demonstrate that he was a leader and got up and made a very bad very weak and frail point. It had no merit from start to finish and he should have been told that. As a consequence one of his colleagues is now out and we have a new standard in the House which I think is thoroughly regrettable. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. We will move on. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believe the difficulty that has arisen here is that I do not think you picked up the vicious innuendo in Trevor Mallard’s interjection. In this Parliament at times members do suffer from the innuendo of other members of the House. Often that is not picked up by the Speaker but that does not make it any less painful for those on the receiving end. What troubles me is that I do not believe that you picked up the vicious innuendo. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Bill English’s interjection whereas Mr Mallard’s answer was wilfully intended to cause hurt. It was vicious even though I must say it was cleverly done in order to cause pain in a way he thought you would not notice. He succeeded and I think it would be unfortunate if you let members get away with that kind of thing but punish the innocent party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I draw the member’s attention to the fact that that interjection has been withdrawn and apologised for. Therefore it cannot be reopened at this point. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have just had 10 minutes or so on points of order which arose from a simple reason—you sought for two members to withdraw and apologise. They both—Trevor Mallard and Bill English—then contested your ruling. Now that is not allowed under the Standing Orders. If the Speaker rules that members are to withdraw and apologise then that should happen. There is no opportunity to contest a Speaker’s ruling on that and that is actually where we have spent all the time. If the House does not back the Speaker when she says something like that we will get ourselves into a mess—as we just saw. So if you ask members to withdraw and apologise I ask that they do so and not argue with you. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. Can we move to question 10 if there are no more questions— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just asked us to refer to Speaker’s rulings 140/7 which is a 1996 ruling by Speaker Tapsell. It states: “While interjections have traditionally been permitted during debate they are not in order at all during question time. If interjections become disruptive to the member asking or answering a question the Speaker will intervene.” Are you now ruling that we are to have no interjections at all during question time? The response from Mr Mallard has caused this side of the House enormous offence. What Mr English has been asked to withdraw and apologise for and—because of his insistence that it was not outside the Standing Orders—what he has been ejected from the House for is asking the Minister how long this would go on or words to that effect. Are you ruling that we now cannot interject at all? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am not ruling that. Interjections will of course not be out of order during question time but the Speaker is entitled at her discretion to require members to withdraw and apologise. I had already warned the House about interjections before that particular exchange across the House. In my judgment both of those interjections did in fact provoke disorder. That is the basis for the ruling. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before all of that happened the Hon Bill English had asked a question about level 1 Technology NCEA results. He asked whether the Minister had known of problems there for the last 3 years and if so what he had done about it. As a result of what has now occurred the Minister never got around to answering the question. I was interested in the answer and I think the people of this country are entitled to an answer to the question. I ask that the Minister now answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Intense professional development for technology— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before we come to that answer I note that the question is actually set down in the name of the Hon Bill English who has been asked to remove himself from the House. He has not asked the full range of supplementaries that he had intended asking. We ask that he be allowed to come back to the House to finish that line of questioning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Under normal circumstances I would have agreed to that but it seems to me that Mr English’s comments directed at the Chair as he was leaving were grossly disrespectful. I had made a ruling. I was entitled to make that ruling within the Standing Orders. He contested that ruling as he left the House. I am perfectly happy for someone to ask supplementary questions on his behalf and to find out what he wished to ask. But he had already asked that question and if the Minister wishes to respond to it then he may do so. I will not take it from National’s question total. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the parliamentary telephone directory. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave to do that. Is there any objection? I am not quite sure of the member’s purpose. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It will become clear in a minute. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is clear what is about to happen because it has happened twice before. The member will seek a series of points of order designed to force you to reverse a previous ruling. I raise two points about that before we start on this charade. The first is that the member who has been required to leave was extremely lucky in my view not to be named. His comments on the way out—more than one; he made about four or five comments—would have led to his being named by Speakers on any number of previous occasions that I have witnessed. I thought you were actually quite generous in that respect and Mr Brownlee would be wise not to push the matter too far. Secondly I remind the member that there are in fact Speakers’ rulings about wasting the time of the House. That in itself can be considered to be out of order. A continuous raising of a trivial series of points of order as I suspect the member is about to start can be regarded in itself as being out of order and could lead to action on your point. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I think the House has to look at the matter of seeking leave. Seeking leave is an important parliamentary privilege and members can use it. But there seems to be a notion on the part of some members that the Speaker does not have a brain. Of course the Speaker does and the Speaker can tell when a person who is seeking leave is actually challenging the Chair. We have now had three I think incidents involving repeated calls seeking leave to table the Standing Orders which we can all tell is actually a challenge to the Chair. It might be advisable for you to advise the House that you are capable of working out when you are being challenged. If a member does that you can then require that member to withdraw and apologise for having challenged the Speaker’s ruling and if the member does not do so—and the Leader of the House is right—you are entitled not only to ask that member to leave but also if the challenge is repeated to name that member. The reason I raise this now is that I really would like members who are abusing the right to seek leave as a way of challenging the Chair to think through that strategy. It is not as clever as they think it is. I have known previous Speakers who would have named a member for using it. I hear people saying that we have never had the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister thrown out on the same day. They are wrong. I saw Gerry Wall do it. I assure members that a number of Speakers would not have allowed what is going on to happen. I support very strongly the rights of members to seek leave to table documents but I regard it as a challenge to the Chair when members get up and seek to table the telephone book or the Standing Orders. That is clearly a challenge to the Chair and from my point of view it is an offence to the whole House. I think that if it happens again you should ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I remind members to look at Speaker’s ruling 19/8 which makes the point the members have made: “Constantly raising trifling points of order is itself disorderly.” Perhaps while members are reflecting on that we could continue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With your indulgence I would like to speak to the point of order currently on the floor raised by Michael Cullen. I certainly accept the points he makes although I did not like the particular suggestions that were of a somewhat threatening nature which should be reserved entirely to the Chair. I also respect the point raised by Richard Prebble particularly his suggestion that a member should be required to withdraw and apologise for challenging a ruling from the Chair. I ask you to consider the exchange that took place in the House earlier in the afternoon when you did in fact require both a very senior Minister and a very senior member of the Opposition to withdraw and apologise for comments they had made. You then went on to suggest to the House that the nature of those comments was not helpful to the order of the House and that you would not be permitting them to go any further. I would then argue quite strongly that in missing the innuendo clearly intended in Mr Mallard’s comments made in answer to Mr English there was a challenge to the Chair. I think that if it takes a rather silly series of points of order such as the one I had just begun to embark on to make that point then it indicates that the House is not in a tidy shape. So while I fully accept that pursuing this matter would be offensive to you and to the House—and we will not be doing so—we do make the point that where challenges to the Chair come from this side of the House it is usually because of a particular grievance relating to a matter that has occurred earlier in proceedings. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but I would just remind the member that I did ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise and he did. That was the end of that matter. If any offence was taken it was dealt with in that way which is appropriate in terms of the Standing Orders. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The area of technology education at secondary schools is one that has been fraught ever since the new curriculum was introduced some years ago. As a result of that this Government has put intensive investment into professional development both directly and as a result of the G3+ settlement and audit so that teachers can better understand the curriculum and the standards. 
Early Childhood Education—Possible Policy Change 
10.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to the Government policy of providing 20 hours’ free early childhood education per week for 3 and 4-year-olds? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report suggesting that giving 20 hours per week of free early childhood education in teacher-led community-based centres does not make sense is not supported by parents and should be abolished. That was from Bill English. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Has he seen any suggestions of alternative approaches to funding early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. I have seen a suggestion that all centres public or private should receive funding for 10 hours per week of free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds. That would of course mean substantial fees for those children attending morning kindergartens—free kindergartens—thus destroying an iconic service. That suggestion came from Dr Brash. 
National Immunisation Register—Minister’s Satisfaction 
11.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she satisfied with all aspects of the National Immunisation Register; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In general yes. The full implementation of the National Immunisation Register is being rolled out and will be completed by December this year. Establishing such a register is complex and expensive but it is necessary if New Zealand is to improve its immunisation rates for preventable diseases. However problems in implementation do arise. For example last week there was a backlog of data because of a software issue but I have now been assured that that backlog has been cleared. 
Heather Roy 
: How can the Minister be satisfied when taxpayers have stumped up $7.5 million for a computer system that has over 150 bugs in it and in 1 month alone it failed to register or incorrectly recorded data on 11000 children who were immunised; is this not just another taxpayer-funded INCIS? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Certainly not and anybody who knows anything about computer systems and certainly new systems knows that there will be teething problems. I can assure this House however that each of the problems has been worked through including that of information that was incorrectly entered into the system. There will come a day when that member if she is still in the House will be very pleased that we are able to ensure that we have a rate of around 95 percent of New Zealanders being immunised—something we cannot do without an immunisation register. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What use is the National Immunisation Register? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It has already been valuable for the current meningococcal B programme by giving district health boards information on how the programme is going. The same benefit will flow when the register is rolled out fully by the end of the year. And it will help us in our general childhood immunisation programme which is an area where we have not performed as well as we should have. 
Judith Collins 
: What assurance can the Minister give to this House and the people of New Zealand that the supplier will be made to fix the 150 registered known bugs in this system from Orion Systems International software? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The assurance I can give this House is that those issues are already being worked on. We do expect that there will be teething problems with a new immunisation register. Certainly we expected there would be some problems and they are being addressed. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why when a condition for the provisional registration of the meningococcal B vaccine was that informed consent forms clearly identified concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine did that not happen? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Considerable information was provided to parents including information about the reaction to the vaccine as well as the efficacy of it. 
Judith Collins 
: How long has the Ministry of Health known about the problems with the Orion Systems International software for the National Immunisation Register and who will pay to have the 150 registered known bugs corrected? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In any Government computer system if there is a problem in terms of data entry—and one of the problems was data entry between compatibility of general practitioners software and the programme—then it is picked up by the ministry. If there is a problem with those who provided the service then I am sure the ministry will be looking at what that service provides. I am told that the ministry first discovered the problems in March this year and has been working to fix them. 
Heather Roy 
: How can parents have any confidence in the immunisation process when it has been confirmed that this system failed to identify children who had missed doses and mistakenly identified others who were up to date and when the results were skewed and follow-up was delayed in the meningococcal vaccine campaign? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The public can be assured. I am advised that this problem occurred at Counties Manukau District Health Board Auckland District Health Board Waitemata District Health Board and Northland District Health Board and that subsequent software releases have fixed the problems. Parents can be assured that when problems are identified they are rectified. I challenge any member in this House even one with his or her own blog site not to find problems in it and then to have to fix them. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister agree with Counties Manukau District Health Board senior manager Nettie Knetsch who said: “You know the first couple of months are going to be ugly but we had hoped it wouldn’t be as ugly as it turned out to be.” and can she confirm firstly that the Ministry of Health has just approved $2 million of spending for a new information technology project for Capital and Coast District Health Board with the same supplier which has not fixed the bugs and secondly that there are still children missing from the register because of the failed INCIS database system she spent millions of dollars on; would the Minister please answer the question? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Much as the member would like to have one of his mini-scandals he tries to get into the media he does not have one here. This is a totally new programme. It was identified very early on that when a new register is developed there will be some problems. As long as those problems are addressed the whole system need not be thrown out which is certainly what has happened with this system. The member raised the fact that Capital and Coast District Health has spent money on a new information technology system. That money was not spent on software for the National Immunisation Register. Each board is entitled to purchase software for patient-data programmes or whatever else. They can purchase— 
Rodney Hide 
: They haven’t told you. They’re too scared to tell you. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is a blowhard. I have to put up with answering a question while he bellows and laughs. Does he really want an answer? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Has the Minister finished? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. 
Heather Roy 
: When did officials first alert the Minister to the failure of the National Immunisation Register database and does she deny that senior officials have been gagged from speaking about that failure simply because this is election year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Absolutely not is the answer to the last part of that question. I have been aware of problems with the programme from the beginning of the year when they were raised. There have been no directions from me for senior officials to be gagged. I am sorry that the member has got it wrong yet again. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the Minister was confused about the order of the two legs to that question. She said that the answer to the first leg was no but in fact it was the second. She was asked when officials first alerted her and I do not think that she addressed that part of the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member may not have heard it but I did hear the Minister correct herself by saying she meant the second part of the question. The answer made sense on that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a letter to Dr Jane O’Hallahan director of the meningococcal vaccine strategy stipulating that informed consent forms be provided clearly identifying concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table a newspaper article that states: “You know the first couple of months are going to be ugly but we had hoped it wouldn’t be as ugly as it turned out to be.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
PILLARS Family Programme—Minister's Confidence 
12.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in the PILLARS family programme for prisoner reintegration following release; if so why? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There was an interjection during that question. We all know the rules. It is the last question. 
Rodney Hide 
: It was in response to Annette King calling out so I think she should be asked to leave too. 
Hon Annette King 
: In fact there were three. There was also Heather Roy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Soon there will be nobody left but we are on the last question. I would ask all those members who interjected on Marc Alexander to please leave. 
Hon Annette King withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber. 
Heather Roy withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am waiting for the results of an outcomes evaluation of the PILLARS programme that will be with me at the end of the month. I will then be in a position to form a view on the effectiveness of that programme. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that the 2003 draft final evaluation report of PILLARS accused the service of frequent caseworker turnover of failures by caseworkers to meet scheduled appointments of failures to identify drug and alcohol abuse family violence and child abuse and of bad pre-release planning; if so why has that organisation been funded for a further 2 years before another evaluation was forthcoming? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I cannot confirm that part. I can confirm that as part of that the programme was said to have well-developed infrastructure and systems and effective trained caseworker teams. I will however acknowledge and concede to the member that the evaluation system has not been good. I am expecting the evaluation to be with me at the end of this month. At that point there are two issues to be raised. One is whether the funding will be continued; if it is to be continued then there will certainly be a tender process. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How has the Government demonstrated its commitment to prisoner reintegration? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In the Budget this year the Government provided an extra $4.9 million for reintegration services for inmates over 4 years. That includes an additional 10 reintegration coordinators in 2005-06 who will play a key role in ensuring that inmates who have served their time are able to find work housing and health services among other things. In addition we are providing better industry training for inmates prior to their release. The Ministry of Social Development is working with the Department of Corrections on a range of initiatives designed to improve the reintegration of inmates upon release. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that when I questioned him in the select committee about why we are still waiting for the final evaluation of PILLARS which was due in April last year he said: “We’re not hiding anything but frankly the evaluation hasn’t been all that flash.”; if so does he not think the public has a right to see how his Government has wasted their money or should they hold their breath for a creative re-edit? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I certainly stand by my comment that I do not think the evaluation system was all that flash. The reality is though of course that there is an alternative competitor in Christchurch as the member knows. I hear from some members in this House that PILLARS is not very good. I hear from other members in this House that it is a very very good programme. Hopefully the evaluation system will break through and give an objective assessment of those things. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that his department has committed to providing an evaluation of outcomes from reintegrative support services by the end of this month; if so will he commit to continuing support for the concept of reintegrative services even if individual agencies have failed to perform by re-tendering for these programmes; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I thought I had answered that but just to reinforce it: the first thing we will need to do is sort out whether the funding will continue—across the whole programme. If it is to continue it will definitely be tendered. 
General Debate 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Just a few short hours ago 700 apple growers their staff their families and their supporters assembled outside on the steps of this Parliament to protest against the total inaction of one James Sutton known to us all as Jim Sutton. For 6 long years this Minister has been asleep under their apple trees doing absolutely nothing while their industry has been falling apart. 
I say quite frankly that that industry is in dire straits because our nearest and best neighbour will not take our New Zealand apples. The science is right the products are right and everything our growers produce is right but the politics are wrong. Jim Sutton has refused to take a case to the World Trade Organization—that is until the growers visited me at my office a few weeks ago and asked me what they should do. I said they should protest about the Minister’s appalling lack of action on the issue and tell the Minister of their intention to protest about it. They did and—guess what? Within a few days the Minister announced he was going to take a case to the World Trade Organization. That is the kind of politics that Jim Sutton engages in. 
I will say that Jim Sutton— 
Jill Pettis 
: He will be here long after that member has gone. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
:—was that the fishwife from Billingsgate again?—is making political history. This week three rural groupings will be protesting on the steps of Parliament. That is unparalleled in our history. In a New Zealand society based on agriculture we have seen apple growers today and tomorrow we will see thoroughbred horse breeders and along with Federated Farmers I trust we will see hundreds upon hundreds of landowners in this country coming to protest against the actions and inactions of one man—Jim Sutton. 
He has achieved absolutely nothing during his tenure which is fast coming to an end. Never before have five branches of Federated Farmers passed a vote of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture. Never before has a Minister of Agriculture actively promoted extra taxes against the sector he is supposedly advocating for. Never before has a Minister of Agriculture in this country sat on his hands as Jim Sutton has. 
A few weeks ago in this House Winston Peters suggested that an Iraqi Minister of Agriculture was in New Zealand. Well that makes two of them. I ask which one is the bigger threat to the New Zealand rural community? It most surely is not the Iraqi; Jim Sutton is the biggest single threat to that community. 
When the protest occurs tomorrow—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I remind members of the convention that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary and then only in a way so as not to disturb the proceedings. I urge restraint on honourable members so they respect the contribution of another member. It is good conduct and common courtesy; it is being considerate of others. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Tomorrow there will be another major protest which is about the abuse this Government is going to perpetrate and perpetuate on private property. That is when Jim Sutton should stand in front of the farming community and say that the Government will withdraw this appalling legislation this abuse of allowing the public to have access to private property. 
I believe that the rural community will stand up tomorrow and say to the Minister: “We will not accept it. We don’t care if you pass legislation; we’re not going to accept it. We’re not going to accept the redistribution of New Zealanders’ property rights.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am not going to spend a lot of time commenting on the previous speech. I will just say that the member is flanked by two members who are going to have the ability I think to give a valedictory speech in a way that that member is not in the not too distant future. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When are those valedictories going to be? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sometime before 24 September. I am not going to spend a lot of time on ACT because it is polling at about 1.5 percent so it is getting to the point of being irrelevant. 
I do though want to focus on a lack of judgment shown by the Opposition and in particular on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in a number of areas. We had the classic case in the House during question time when a suggestion was made that the current National spokesperson on education might consult his colleague who was sitting next to him and Don Brash thought that was a terrible insult and should be ruled out. What did he do? He drew attention to something that he thought was a terrible thing to say which most people around New Zealand would not have got too anxious about. The idea of consulting Nick Smith I think on occasions might be a good idea. I cannot think of the occasion but it is a definite possibility. 
Darren Hughes 
: Not if one is buying a new rug. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No he is not good on recognising rugs. He is OK with rug rats but not rugs. 
I say also to the National Party that as we are tracking expectations of tax changes by the National Party—that is the public’s expectations of the promises it is going to make—the expectations are going up and up. It is now at the point where most people are expecting somewhere close to $50 a week for people on the average wage as a tax cut from the National Party. A couple of weeks ago it was only $30. The problem is that the National Party has got itself into a trap. I see Maurice Williamson smiling in agreement. National members know they have got themselves into a pretty serious situation. If the position was the same as a couple of weeks ago—that is $30 a week for the average wage earner and obviously a lot more money for National’s mates—that would be an annual $3 billion to be found. We must remember that we are in a situation where we are very close on a cash-accounting basis to a deficit—very very close. But what National wants to do and what it knows it would have to do is either borrow the $3 billion a year—$3 billion was the expectation a couple of weeks ago; now it is $5 billion—or make cuts. National has made clear where some of the cuts would be. Apparently superannuation— 
Jill Pettis 
: Health. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not saying it will make a cut in health care. I am saying that National will charge because that is what Don Brash said. He said there is nothing wrong with health care that the price mechanism will not fix. We know the only way of invoking a price mechanism in health care is to charge Kiwis to go to the public hospitals. That is what National members want to do. It is what they were lining up to do in the past. It is Ruth Richardson all over again. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: And they are talking about selling assets. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Talking about selling assets I have to ask: what about schools? Don Brash does not care who owns the schools. He has promised to transfer them to trusts that would be able to do what the electricity trusts did and on-privatise them. That is the National Party’s approach. Maybe in the first year or two it would not cost it any more. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will they deny it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No National members do not deny it at all. Of course they will not deny it. That is their policy. One thing I can say is that Maurice Williamson is proud of that policy. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yep! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He agrees with it he is proud of it and he has just interjected to indicate that that is the case whereas the rest of the National Party does not have the backbone that he does. Those members will not stand up and say what their policy is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We know that the Labour Government is in serious trouble when hit man Trevor Mallard is lined up to defend the case. The part I enjoyed the most about his speech was when he accused National of wanting to close schools. He is the man who rushed around New Zealand closing schools all over the country. He was rolled by his colleagues and now he is in a pickle on so many fronts that he is one of the most discredited members of the Government. Furthermore it is interesting that he did not want to speak at all in defence of his Government’s record. He wanted to have a debate about tax. Members on this side of the House welcome the debate on tax. Bring it on! Labour members know that even two-thirds of their own supporters support tax cuts for workers. They know that ordinary New Zealanders are looking forward to a change of Government so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money. 
But the problem for this Government is that it is rotten to the core. Government members have gone beyond even being upfront and honest. They are running scared. This afternoon there was a protest by 800 apple growers. They chanted: “Where’s Jim? Where’s Jim?”. Not even the Associate Minister of Agriculture Damien O’Connor who happens to represent the vast bulk of apple growers in my area fronted up because— 
Darren Hughes 
: There was a fire in his electorate you fool. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Helen Clark said that it was more important to meet with the sheep than it was to meet with ordinary New Zealanders. That is how far out of touch this Government is and how much it is running away from ordinary New Zealanders. Jim Sutton could not be bothered Helen Clark could not be bothered and Damien O’Connor could not be bothered. It is no wonder New Zealanders will not be bothered with them when polling day comes. 
Then we had the disgraceful— 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During question time the Hon Phil Goff pointed out that Jim Sutton had previous commitments. Damien O’Connor is currently on the West Coast. There has been a terrible fire in a Fonterra factory which affects the agricultural part of his electorate. It is quite out of order for the member to behave in that way when he knows that the member is representing his electorate. What a disgrace! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. I refer members to the Speakers’ rulings about referring to the absence of members or otherwise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was very careful in my choice of words. I said that they had not attended the apple protest. That is completely within the Standing Orders. The point of order raised by Mr Hughes was completely out of order. I seek that my time start again. It is only a 5-minute speech. Speakers have been very strict in the general debate about members raising nonsense points of order which that was and I seek to have my complete speech. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Members on this side of the House have no objection to the time taken for this point of order being added on to the member’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member seeking the leave of the House? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave if that is necessary. I had thought it was at your discretion not to take the time for this interruption out of the member’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes it will be added on. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on the point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I know that you have Mr Assistant Speaker but this is a fresh point of order. I ask you to clarify this matter for the House. You have reminded us that it is improper and contrary to the Standing Orders for members to refer to the absence of a member from the House but you did not speak at all to the junior Government whip who stood up and proceeded to tell the House and the whole of the nation precisely where every absent Labour Minister was today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I did. I told the member that he was out of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: So desperate has this Government become in trying to protect itself from the raft of scandals that if it is not messing up school examinations if it is not sending cabs when it should have been sending cops if it is not—[ 
Interruption 
] Mark Burton pipes up. Perhaps Mark Burton who says there is no room for tax cuts might be able to explain to New Zealanders how he has been part of a billion-dollar bungle over the Kyoto Protocol. He told the people of New Zealand that we were signing up to Kyoto so that we could take hundreds of millions of dollars. The Prime Minister said it and Pete Hodgson said it. Are we surprised that Pete Hodgson has not been debating these issues this week? He has disappeared overseas which is standard Government procedure but it is all said in that piece by Colin James in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this week. 
The wheels are falling off the Government on every side. We were used to George Hawkins making a mess of things and Lianne Dalziel but Trevor Mallard has been grossly discredited Michael Cullen’s tax-cutting Budget was a disaster and we even have Jim Sutton now on the ropes in terms of issues like apples. It is no coincidence that both today and tomorrow protests have been planned on the steps of Parliament by absolute key constituencies that Labour has abandoned. Labour has abandoned those constituencies. Labour has lost their support. It is on the way out. It is a decaying rotten Government that is bereft of ideas and the time is coming when it will be put out of its misery. New Zealanders are looking for a fresh change. They want to know that there will be a Government that believes in them spending their hard-earned money not the Labour Party. It will be a Government that is upfront and honest. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: We’re first. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There will not be the skulduggery that we have seen from members like Judith Tizard. Judith Tizard is the member who said that changes to the Resource Management Act like direct referral to the Environment Court were evil and dangerous. That is what Judith Tizard said and now the Government is in such a panic it has adopted those measures. The sooner this Government goes the better. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 It is really laying it on with a trowel very thickly for that member Nick Smith to come to this House and speak about credibility. For the record he is the member who was summonsed to the High Court to answer charges against the High Court. It was a simple contest of belief. The member had made statements outside the High Court that the High Court said scandalised the court. The member then stood before the High Court and on oath told the story that he believed to be true. A member of the public stood before the court and told the story that that person believed to be true and the High Court believed that person. The High Court did not believe a word that the Hon Dr Nick Smith said. The High Court of New Zealand found that Dr Nick Smith was not believable—that it could not believe him. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The statement made by Mr Rick Barker is untrue and is not consistent with the High Court’s ruling which has been tabled in Parliament. It has been the subject of a personal explanation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 35/3 and to Standing Orders 106(1) and (2). If the member believes that he has been misrepresented then he has a time and a place to say so. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have read the High Court ruling very carefully and I saw the evidence is there. It is very clear. The court had the choice between believing Dr Nick Smith or the other witness and the court chose to believe the other witness—and without doubt one can draw only one conclusion which is that Dr Nick Smith was not believable. 
I want to put the other issue to the test: the issue of credibility. When this Government came into office public debt was about 35 percent of GDP. Public indebtedness is now 22 percent of GDP. Whereas unemployment was at record levels New Zealand now has the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD. For every 10 kids who were on the dole having been put on the scrapheap by the National Government—thrown out with no hope of getting a job and with no future—Labour has reduced the number by seven to just three now. And we are going to get jobs for the rest; we are committed to do that. However the National Party has been promising tax cuts—tax cuts that amount to over $1.7 billion a year. It says that it will not only cut taxes but also spend more money. It says it will spend another $4.5 billion over 10 years on transport over and above what the Government says. National says it will spend an extra $540 million on the Waikato Expressway another $120 million on northern roads another $110 million on a toll-free harbour link in Tauranga an extra $4 billion on defence to get us up to Australia’s level of expenditure and then another $100 million on defence. It says it will spend another $722 million a year on law and order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about schools? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member mentions schools. I have not got to that. National says it will spend another $300 million on the police another $20 million on compulsory DNA testing and more on teachers and schools. The list goes on and on; it is unbelievable. By election time the National Party will be promising everybody tax cuts of $30-plus a week to $50 a week. And I bet that if it is up to the honourable Dr Brash people like him will be getting $100 or $200 worth of tax cuts a week. In addition to that National says it will spend billions and billions of extra dollars. 
Well we have seen those snake oil merchants before. We have heard that from the National Party before and we think we have found the answer as to how National would do that. It would do it by State asset sales. It would have a big spend-up on public assets. Just in the last day or so National announced that it would sell Landcorp. Three huge farms in my area would be sold off to overseas investors. National would sell off Kiwibank New Zealand Post the Electricity Corporation the Accident Compensation Corporation and Television New Zealand Ltd. There would be a mass sell-off of State assets under a National Government. I say to the National members that there is no credibility in the New Zealand public’s eyes if the National Party promises to cut taxes and at the same time to spend more and more. But it will be a question of leadership. 
Let us hear why the National Party has not released its tax policy. I say to the public that it is very obvious why it has not released it. We need just to look at the foot-and-mouth disease scare. What was there about that that was really quite extraordinary? Dr Brash said about that scare: “I’m surprised they made a public statement about it at all to be frank. If it’s is only a hoax they have done a lot of damage to our reputation.” In fact what the National Party was saying is that deception is the best rule in these things—to deceive the public not to tell it the truth and to hide the truth. That is exactly what the National Party is doing with regard to its tax policy. It will not tell the truth. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The moment the Labour Government announced its Budget in 2005 it was in trouble. And the moment the National Party announces its tax cuts it will be in trouble. Around this country the halls are filling up wall to wall and outside the doors. That tells me that a third horse is in this race and that this election will be a three-horse race. All the bumf and talk from all the commentators and feel-good people can carry on but I was at Te Awamutu the other day where it was wall to wall. I thought to myself: “I’ve felt this feeling before. This is déjà vu only it is déjà vu where New Zealanders understand just how hopeless the Labour Party and the National Party—the tired old parties—are. 
Did members hear the argument today? It was just Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber arguing about the same old things. The fact is after 21 years of this economic experiment under both Labour and National Governments we are at No. 40 in the latest per capita per income figures from the World Bank. We are not at No. 4; we are at No. 40. I asked people out there whether when they voted for Labour in 1999 they really thought they would get a change. No one put up his or her hand. I asked them whether if they were to vote for National in 2005 they really thought they would get a change. This is in Te Awamutu which used to be sort of heartland National. 
Last night I was at the Te Awamutu Rotary Club and at a professional women’s meeting—a big meeting I might add—where I asked the question: “If you vote for Brash and National do you really think you’re going to get a change?”. And do members know what? One old woman said she thought there might be a change. That was one person in a packed meeting. That tells me— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was that Don Brash? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It was actually Don’s sister. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Use the member’s full name. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Excuse me but there are no parameters to this debate. It is a free-for-all. I want the public freely to get to know— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is a longstanding member. He knows he must refer to a person by his or her full name not by a nickname. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: All right it was Don Brash’s sister. The reality is that more and more New Zealanders in growing numbers realise that there is no hope for the old parties or their Klingons or their poodle parties or their doormat parties. All the hope in 2005 lies with the party of principle that has never sold people down the drain that says what it means and means what it says a party that has soul a party that has heart and compassion. I will give an example. A man tried to kill—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Here is Mr Williamson who believes in tolling. In 2002 National was fully for tolling. Now we have Don Brash running around the country saying: “No tolls.” A candidate for National in Hamilton is saying that a National Government would fix the road between Auckland and Hamilton. Why does that silly turkey not go for a drive up there? It is being fixed. Machinery is everywhere and here is Don Brash saying: “No tolls in New Zealand!” 
He is the biggest political hitchhiker and plagiarist I have seen. He stole our Waitangi policy and he could not explain it. Every journalist knows that. He could not answer the first question or the second or the third or the fourth or the fifth. He could not answer one of them. Then he looked at our policy on infrastructure and roading and said: “That’s pretty good. I’ll steal that.” And here we have Maurice Williamson who went down to Queenstown and told people there they were going to have six private companies and toll roads. That is what he said. Now Don Brash is saying: “We are for all taxes for roads going into roading.” Yeah right! People should go and look at National’s 2002 racing policy. It had none. We did. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: We did. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No National did not. That is why I say to Mr Tisch he was moved to say at the racing conference that National had been working on it for a long time. Yes exactly 24 hours! National had a meeting out at Trentham. Guess how many people turned up? Five people plus Lindsay Tisch and Don Brash! They got the docile  
Dominion Post  
to publish a photo of them after the meeting with a horse. And their racing policy? The problem is that one could not tell which one was a horse. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 That was one of the best comedy turns I have seen from that member. I congratulate him. I am particularly proud that he is now claiming to be fixing the roads between Auckland and Hamilton. I did not notice New Zealand First suggesting for a moment that we should be spending more on infrastructure. It is a Labour-Progressive coalition Government that does that. I am very proud of what this Government has done. I say to the New Zealand First Party that New Zealanders have not forgotten what it did when it was in Government—and that is what we expect it to do again. 
We have heard a lot of nastiness today in particular from Nick Smith who is probably the nastiest member in this House. I want to put on the record the fact that Jim Sutton applied for leave on 28 April to go to the traceability session of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production conference and then to speak in Christchurch at the annual convention of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science. On 28 April Jim Sutton applied for leave and this morning Damien O’Connor applied for leave to go to his electorate because there has been a major fire at the Fonterra plant a plant that is absolutely vital to the economy of the West Coast and indeed of New Zealand. But National members those nasty snivelling people on the other side of the House would not care about that. 
What I find astonishing is that National appears to be attacking us for taking action that had never been taken in 82 years. That is what they are attacking this Government for—for having the guts to stand up and say we are going to talk to our best mate Australia about its rotten apple policy. We are going to get up and do that because Australia’s policy is not fair to apple producers and not fair to Australian consumers. Has anyone ever done anything like that before in this country? No they have not. Nick Smith is sneering and deriding good Labour Ministers who are getting out there and doing the real stuff. 
I want to say in this general debate that I am appalled at what the National Party is offering. Usually it offers no policy—or the two media statements from last year that make up its arts policy. No I lie—one of them was this year. One was from last year and one was from this year. That is about the average from National on policy. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s more than their defence policy. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: It is more than National’s defence policy. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: They’re going to have a review. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Is that its policy? Jolly good. I hope the people of New Zealand are listening very carefully to what the National Party is saying. National is saying it will spend money twice. Actually no—often it will spend it three times. We need to look at the history of that party. I have looked at the history of Don Brash and as a New Zealander I will feel sick to my stomach on behalf of every hard-working family—every man woman and child—in this country if that man is ever able to put his beliefs in place. I am not talking about his policies because he is not telling us those. There are no policies. I am talking about what he believes. He believes that tax cuts are the answer to poverty. He believes that tax cuts are the answer on housing. He believes that tax cuts are the answer for those who are losing out on education because they do not have a stable home. He says tax cuts are the answer on health. That is what he said. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He did not. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: He said it on  
Morning Report 
 last week. I am very very happy to table the transcript. That is—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. I ask Dr Mapp to stand withdraw and apologise. He is a longstanding member. He knows he cannot use that terminology in the House. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I assure the House that straight after my speech I will table the transcript of Don Brash saying all of those things. This Government is really proud to believe that New Zealanders deserve a fair go. We share New Zealand’s values. We believe in a fair go for everyone. We believe that the underpinnings of solid families are good affordable healthy housing good education and good health-care. This Government has spent more money on those underpinnings put more training into them and delivered more than any other Government in history. We believe in a decent society. We believe in people being able to work. We believe that they should go to their boss when they want a pay rise not come to the Government saying they want tax cuts that would destroy everything New Zealand stands for. 
I seek leave to table a transcript of a Radio New Zealand interview with Dr Brash in which he said that tax cuts were the answer on all of those issues. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The biggest mistake that last member made was to refer to good Labour Ministers. I want to look at Labour’s front bench and my theme is a theme that was picked up by Colin James earlier this week. Every single one of them has failed. Mr Sutton will get two protests this week: one by apple growers one by Federated Farmers tomorrow. He is a failure. Mr Mallard presided over the disgrace that is the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. Mr Maharey presided over a $239 million bungle over Te Wananga o Aotearoa. Mr Hodgson presided over a billion-dollar bungle over the Kyoto Protocol. Mrs King has health waiting lists that we cannot even see the end of. Dr Cullen is the man responsible for a 67c tax cut. Finally there is Prime Minister Clark; she is presiding over failure. 
The point is this: one cannot go to the country and say there is a marvellous $7 billion surplus then on the other hand say that people cannot have a tax cut. The public do not buy it the public do not believe it and that is why this Government is going down the tubes. 
Labour is now so desperate that it is using public money to boost union membership in the public sector. It has made a whole pattern of special payments to its Public Service Association (PSA) mates in the public service. Let us look at the recent record. Courts staff get a lump sum of $640 provided they are members of the union. The whole purpose of that of course is to get more members for the union. But it gets a lot worse than that. At Work and Income the bribe is $1200. That is way more than the union fee. It says to members of the public service that the only way to get a wage increase is to join the union. That is the kind of corruption the kind of bribery that this Government is now indulging in. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot allege corruption. He knows that is out of order. There have been a number of Speakers’ rulings on it. I ask the member to come to order. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I certainly allege there have been all sorts of incentive payments to boost union membership and that is frankly discriminatory. But it gets even worse than that. Labour is now offering two extra leave days to boost total holidays to 5 weeks—but only to union members. What kind of example is that for the private sector? No wonder Government spending is going through the roof! 
Of course Labour does get a pay-off. We have only to read in this month’s  
PSA Journal. 
 This is what Labour’s union mates are now saying. The PSA says there is a neutral public service but this is what it says in the June editorial: “… I can tell you that the PSA executive board and congress believe the success and wellbeing of the union—and that is all of us—rests on the re-election of a Labour-led Government.” That is the pay-off is it not? The Government pays extra money to its PSA mates and it gets that kind of propaganda—paid for by public money. That is the kind of disgraceful behaviour we are seeing from this Government. 
This whole magazine is shot through with propaganda. The Government members could not convince a single member of the public that the Budget was any good so what do they do instead? They get the PSA to print seven pages of blatant Budget propaganda. To cap it all off what does it do? It puts photos of Helen Clark in the magazine. Yes it is all here including special photos of Helen Clark—more propaganda. Finally it caps it off with Mr Ross Wilson that impartial member of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions praising the Government and criticising National. 
That is the whole point; public money is being used for surreptitious blatant Labour propaganda. Well I say to those hopeless members on that side that it will not work. If the best they can do is get their union mates—because no one else will do it—to propagandise they have failed. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 All members of Parliament will have seen the recent survey of public opinion showing that 60 percent of young adults aged between 18 and 24 support the raising of the legal alcohol purchasing age to 20. It is not just a strong majority among young adults who want to raise the legal alcohol purchasing age—the age at which people can walk into their licensed corner dairy and buy alcohol. Strong majorities in every age group and in every region in New Zealand are in favour of action on youth binge drinking. The overwhelming message to us in this House of Representatives is that we must show leadership in order to turn the tide against the harm being caused by the misuse of alcohol by too many young teenagers and children. 
My Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is before the Law and Order Committee. Submissions will close on 12 August. The bill tackles three issues that must be addressed as part of a much broader culture-change project. It tackles broadcast TV alcohol advertising the rules we have in order to stem the supply of liquor to minors and the minimum legal purchasing age. This is a public health issue a youth mental health issue a family policy issue and a public safety issue and New Zealanders have the absolute right to demand that their Parliament act. The question every member of Parliament has to answer is this: if many 17-year-olds easily accessed alcohol from their 20-year-old friends before 1999 did the 1999 law change make it easier for 15-year-olds to access alcohol from their 18-year-old mates? The opinion of public health professionals many front-line police and welfare workers and the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders is that the answer to that question is yes. 
One of the main effects of the 1999 law change was to make access to alcohol easier for very young teenagers. People are demanding that their Parliament fix the policy error that Parliament itself made in 1999. The leader of the National Party Don Brash; the leader of United Future Peter Dunne; and the leader of ACT Rodney Hide have opposed letting the public have a say on this vital public health issue. Don Brash Peter Dunne and almost every ACT MP voted against the bill even going to the select committee. If they had had their way the people would not even have had the opportunity to talk directly to their employees the members of Parliament. 
I want Mr Dunne the leader of the so-called family friendly party to tell all of us why he does not think that the people of Ohariu-Belmont should be listened to on as vital an issue to real families as this. The Progressive Party will be holding a public meeting in Ohariu-Belmont on this issue because we would like to hear what people in that electorate think. We will send the results to Peter Dunne. In fact we will even ask him to come although given that United Future staunchly opposed the Progressive Party’s pro-family 4 weeks’ annual leave law change I am not holding my breath that the results will have any effect on him. 
The people of New Zealand have a right to hear from the National leader Don Brash as to why he opposes stemming the harm caused by alcohol to children. Don Brash gave the vital casting vote to liberalise prostitution law a while back. The Progressive Party disagrees with him on that but we accept that he held a principled view on a complex matter even if it was a different point of view from our own. But having given the casting vote in favour of short-term commercial sexual relationships he went on to oppose civil union legislation that was designed to support loving longer-term relationships. 
For the majority of New Zealanders Don Brash’s contradictory positions will make little sense. Now we know his stance on the alcohol purchasing age and it confirms our worst fears. For the third time in a row Don Brash is showing himself to be totally out of touch with the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders. Progressive Party candidates in this year’s election campaign will highlight Dr Brash’s position on the drinking age issue at every public opportunity we get. We want to know what his great alternative strategy to turn the tide against binge-drinking is. He must be hiding it up his sleeve but he should share it with us. We want to hear it the select committee wants to hear it and the people want to hear it. 
I want briefly to comment on so-called social liberals like those who inhabit the majority of the ACT caucus. Not only do the majority of ACT members oppose action on binge drinking but ACT’s entire caucus voted last week against the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) which was put forward by the Hon Jim Anderton. Social liberals apparently believe that 14-year-olds have some hitherto unknown God-given and constitutionally enshrined right to swallow benzylpiperazine party pills by the dozen. Next the social liberals will be telling us that it is constitutionally wrong to deny 14-year-olds the right to drive motorbikes at 120 kilometres an hour. 
This bill on the drinking age the advertising of alcohol and the supply of alcohol to minors in New Zealand is an issue that all New Zealanders are concerned about. There are many opinions on this issue but the opinions that I suggest members of Parliament should listen to in the first instance are those of the experts in the various fields and certainly not last those of the community itself. The Law and Order Committee will be the place that the experts and the community can be heard. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I believe United Future believes and according to Saturday’s Fairfax-ACNielsen poll 75 percent of New Zealand voters including nearly 70 percent of Labour voters believe that it is time for tax cuts. All the parties in this House with the single exception of the Labour Party also believe it is time to cut taxes. On this issue at least it would appear that the once-Teflon Helen Clark - led Labour Government has been reduced to a 25 percent party. There is no doubt in my mind that New Zealanders should have a tax cut that it should occur immediately and that it is affordable. 
It is clear that between now and the election date Labour will attempt to obscure those patent realities via a mixture of red herrings smokescreens and sophistry. That must not be allowed to happen. Let us today however in anticipation of Labour’s efforts get some fundamental facts clearly put on the table in this House. New Zealand voters deserve no less. 
Let me say unambiguously that the tax cuts proposed by United Future could be funded in their entirety from the surpluses contained in the Budget projections. Let us be crystal-clear about what a surplus is. A surplus is the amount left over after Government expenditure on health education police superannuation defence Working for Families etc. has already been taken into account. The media need to grab that reality and make sure it is conveyed to the people of New Zealand. I read for example a New Zealand Press Association article from 15 June that blandly stated that tax cuts worth $2 billion a year would require welfare benefits superannuation school classroom ratios or health services to be cut. That is just plain wrong. 
Here are the facts. The Government’s operating balance over the next 3-year period—2005 to 2007—will be around $17.9 billion before money is set aside for the superannuation fund. That will take $7.2 billion leaving $10.7 billion. The cost of the tax reductions that United Future proposes for that same 3-year period is $2.5 billion—still leaving $7.2 billion available for capital expenditure. It is a modest and entirely affordable proposal. 
Here is the way in which Dr Cullen tries to fudge this matter. He simply uses the word “expenditure” without defining what kind of expenditure it is. As I have mentioned spending on education health etc. is revenue expenditure and is deducted before the surplus is calculated. But Dr Cullen then says that in any event he spends the amount of the surplus as well and is left with no cash in the bank. Here he is clearly talking about capital expenditure. If he wants to debate with me about how capital expenditure can be funded then I simply say “Bring it on!”. 
There are in fact myriad ways in which capital expenditure can be funded—private-public partnerships and borrowing being just two of them. In fact funding capital expenditure exclusively and only from each year’s surplus which is the way Dr Cullen does it is highly unconventional. The only people who buy a new car or a new house and fund all of it from that year’s income are either super-rich or Lotto winners. 
That is the debate we should be having. I say in this debate to Dr Cullen that an error repeated over and over again ad nauseam until the end of time still does not constitute the truth. We should be on guard for significant errors that will be used to try to influence the way in which people vote in this year’s election. The people of New Zealand deserve to know the facts. They need to have the facts unambiguously explained to them. That is the whole point of my contribution to this debate today. I hope that as  
Hansard  
will show we have clearly put on the record that not only are tax cuts affordable but we do not have to cut expenditure on revenue costs like health education etc. or on the construction of new roads hospitals prisons etc. to have tax cuts. It is simply a matter of some innovative and in fact rather conventional funding and financing and of an ability to understand how to read a balance sheet and arrange a nation’s financial affairs. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 I am very glad to have this call today. To use a baseball analogy it is like being in the ninth innings with the bases loaded—batter up! Let us welcome the opportunity to put before the public of New Zealand and our listeners today a very stark choice which is illustrated by a prominent National billboard that talks about National “cuts” because that is ladies and gentlemen the choice that is before all New Zealanders. 
I will say three things today. The first is that Dr Brash’s tax-and-spend policies do not add up and cannot be trusted. Secondly they imply a return to the failed policies of the 1990s. I contrast that with Labour’s programme which continues to work for a just and a prosperous New Zealand. 
Let me begin by contemplating the desperate tactics on the other side of the House that we are seeing rolled out. It is like National members have rung every local chairman of the National Party in every regional organisation and said: “This is it guys. It’s now or never. If we don’t crawl back into power now we will lose a generation of MPs and never ever be the Government we want to be.” So today we saw the most bizarre spectacle in my political lifetime: apple growers criticising the Government for something the Opposition never had the guts to do when it was in power. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may never allege that someone lacks courage. That is a personal reflection that is out of order. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw and apologise. It was something the National Party never had the foresight to do when it was in power. We are taking our closest friend Australia to the World Trade Organization. It does not come tougher than that and we are doing it because it is the right thing to do. But if the Waipukurau branch of the National Party wants to make an issue of it for the public I say “Bring it on!”. National is clearly also calling in its chips with the Employers and Manufacturers Association. Thank God it is run by a failed Social Credit candidate called Alasdair Thompson who is well known for his ham-fisted club-footed approach that has got National’s transport billboard campaign slammed by such Labour friends as the Auckland chamber of commerce. I say to Alasdair that he can take his billboards and put them right up his deficit. 
I turn to tax policy. The National Party does not have one. That is why no one can object to it. The National Party has rolled out about $7 billion worth of fatuous spending promises with no way to pay for them. Yes it is a lot of fun dancing with a shadow is it not? But my concern is for the people of New Zealand who might just out of some sort of vain hope want to believe those promises and some of them might even be tempted to vote for them. As we saw with the double deficits in Ronald Regan’s America which Clinton had to fix up and as we are seeing now with George Bush’s voodoo economics the chickens always come home to roost. 
Under this Government we have brought gross debt to GDP down to 20 percent and next year net debt will be in credit for the first time as I have said before since Sir Julius Vogel borrowed to fund the railways. We have reduced unemployment to a record low—the lowest in the Western World. We have got growth up to about double the average that the National Party ever managed when it was in office and we have family-friendly policies that United Future would not have dreamt of. We are rebuilding families by putting money in the pockets of people who had to choose between food on the table and taking their kids to the doctor. We are eliminating child poverty in New Zealand by 30 percent with last year’s Budget alone. 
I ask members to contrast that with the 1990s—have New Zealanders forgotten what it was like? Have they forgotten the way the rich got richer—the top 10 percent only—the poor got poorer and the forgotten middle class missed out? Have they forgotten the Employment Contracts Act that made the workers poorer and managed to drop Labour productivity at the same time? That is an achievement so amazing that it deserves to go down in history. National has already talked about resuming privatisation. This week it is talking about flicking Land Corporation Ltd and privatising accident compensation. What will it be next week? Will it be hospitals? How will it fund those tax cuts that it is promising but is refusing to detail? I ask members to contrast that with Labour. Under this Government expenditure to GDP has fallen debt to GDP has fallen and we have a small surplus but a cash deficit. This is a good prudent Government; it deserves another term. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Not long after the Greens came into Parliament in 1999 National New Zealand First and ACT MPs tried to discredit the Greens’ strong human rights policy by portraying me as a supporter of the Cambodian dictator Pol Pot and of his genocidal crimes. I assured the House that those accusations were wrong but recently with an election looming both Winston Peters and Richard Prebble have been repeating those defamatory statements. I wish now to address the issue in more detail. 
Thirty years ago in 1975 the brutal corrupt regimes in Saigon and Phnom Penh which were backed by the American Government were overthrown by insurgent forces. Most New Zealanders who marched against the Indo-China war—which included many MPs who are currently in the House; myself and Helen Clark for example—welcomed the collapse of those regimes because it heralded the end of a very bloody war. The hope of anti-war New Zealanders including myself was that the new Governments in Saigon and Phnom Penh would be better than the regimes that they had replaced. We thought it would be hard for them to be worse. No distinction was made between the new Viet Namese and Cambodian Governments and many thought that the Khmer Rouge was an adjunct to the Viet Namese communist forces. Some time later the world found out that there was a difference and that the Khmer Rouge was acting in a genocidal way and we started to hear the name Pol Pot. 
I was a young socialist activist at the time Pol Pot’s horrors were exposed to the world. I along with other socialists like British journalist John Pilger did what we could to stop the Western nations from giving him any support. However we found that many Governments were determined to back Pol Pot. Those included the New Zealand National Government whose MPs included the very Winston Peters who has been so quick to call me a Pol Pot supporter. That National Government was determined not to back the Viet Namese - supported Heng Samrin Government that had taken over Phnom Penh in January 1979. There was a cold war on and the National Government including Mr Peters treated the genocidal Pol Pot Government as preferable to a Phnom Penh Government aligned with Viet Nam. 
It is interesting that in the House on 11 December 1979 the then Labour MP Richard Prebble urged National’s Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs David Thomson to “no longer recognise the Pol Pot regime”. But the National Government no doubt supported by the younger National MP Winston Peters kept on voting for Pol Pot to represent the Cambodian people at the United Nations and elsewhere. Unfortunately when Labour came to power in 1984 Mr Prebble and his colleagues changed their tune and voted for Pol Pot themselves in the UN. This continued right through the 1980s. When I became NewLabour’s foreign affairs spokesperson I debated with Labour’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Russell Marshall on National Radio on this very topic and I pleaded with him not to support Pol Pot. He insisted that his Government would continue to do so. I have found no record that Richard Prebble ever disagreed with the Cabinet that he was in. I will table some documents on this history for the enlightenment of the House. 
The basic problem we faced then as we do today is New Zealand Governments going soft on repressive regimes. Sometimes this has been because they see some short-term diplomatic or trade benefit as when National and Labour Governments supported Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor or in more recent times when they played down human rights violations in ASEAN countries like Malaysia and Singapore. Everyone knows that the Green Party has a consistent record of promoting international human rights which it showed most recently during Pakistan President Musharraf’s visit and during Chinese leader Wu Bangguo’s visit. 
The Greens also promote human rights clauses in trade treaties. Sadly we have failed to achieve an effective clause in the recent one negotiated with Thailand. We also know that among some in the House there is still a subordination to the American administration. We do not hear National ACT or New Zealand First criticising the violation of human rights by the Bush administration in Iraq Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay. A National Government would subordinate its foreign policy to America’s in the same way that the Holyoake National Government did in taking New Zealand into the Indo-China war and in the same way that the Muldoon National Government including Winston Peters did in backing the ruthless Pol Pot. 
 I seek leave to table a page in  
Hansard  
dated 14 December 1979 where in answer to a written question David Thomson the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs talks about “New Zealand’s continued recognition of the Pol Pot regime”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] Points of order will be heard in silence. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I seek leave to table another document a record of questions for oral answer dated 11 December 1979 where Richard Prebble a Labour MP asked the Government to “no longer recognise the Pol Pot regime”. That Government was the National Government that Winston Peters was in. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the  
Dominion 
 dated 21 November 1975 where the journalist Richard Long talked about the “public distaste for the continued recognition of Pol Pot” by the National Government which included Winston Peters. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members of Standing Order 84/3 that points of order must be put tersely and only on the point of order raised but also that points of order must be heard in silence. That point is also made in Speaker’s ruling 19/6. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I probably have a couple of points of order. In my recollection Mr Peters was not an MP until 1978 but if that creates some problems for Mr Locke he might want to clarify it later on—[ 
Interruption 
] I am part-way through a point of order so sit down! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RON MARK 
: Secondly I seek leave to table the military wartime records of Keith Locke Rod Donald and members of the entire Green caucus to show how staunchly they fought for the free world to rid it of tyrants despots and dictators who consistently breached human rights and civil liberties. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The first issue is a debatable point. On the second issue of seeking leave is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Keith Locke 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already warned members about silence during points of order. There will be a few yellow cards going out. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Mark said that the documents I seek to table did not apply to Winston Peters. All my documents were dated 1979 and Mr Peters was in the National Government supporting Pol Pot during that year. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you but that is not a point of order. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 First of all I note the contribution of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who noticed what the Leader of the Opposition Don Brash did not notice: huge progress is being made on the Waikato Expressway because of strong lobbying from members of Parliament like myself Dianne Yates and Nanaia Mahuta and from local authorities in that area and because we have an integrated Government - New Zealand transport strategy. 
The other compliment I want to hand out with a very very warm and strong bouquet is to the Hon Matt Robson. I fully commend his speech to the House and as a member of this Parliament I want to encourage members of the public to make submissions with reference to his bill that proposes restrictions on the television advertising of alcohol and also proposes again raising the drinking age. That will be a time for members of the public and of community organisations to be heard in front of a parliamentary committee—not just the self-interested groups that hang around the lobbies of this building and make their living in this town. I say that as an individual member of Parliament. Obviously I will respect the views of those groups as well but this is a time for the community and the public to have their say. 
Like the member I have noticed public opinion on this matter. I also find it very curious that members of Parliament who claim to uphold family values—Dr Brash Mr Dunne and Mr Hide—are voting against this bill. I would say that one of the big issues affecting families in this country at the moment is the whole issue of alcohol abuse amongst our young people. I am not suggesting for one moment that the bill is perfect but it is a good starting point for us at Parliament to re-evaluate that issue. I also want to compliment my colleague Dianne Yates on her so-far unsuccessful work to get advertising labels warning of health effects on to liquor bottles. Interestingly the home of the free market the United States has those labels. 
I want to talk today about Don Brash’s prescription for this country. I notice that in 1981 or thereabouts he stood in the East Coast Bays by-election. He stood against one Garry Knapp the Social Credit candidate. It seems to me that Dr Brash possibly absorbed some Social Credit theories and some Social Credit beliefs perhaps unwittingly because we have heard the formula. We keep hearing about tax cuts on the one hand and on the other hand we keep hearing about a significant increase in Government spending. The two do not appear to go together. There are only two ways that can be funded. National can increase borrowing so that the indebtedness of this nation is increased significantly or it can do what Social Credit I think believed in and that is go down to the Reserve Bank of which Don Brash was governor for a number of years and print the money—write out more credit; social credit. 
One of the other means however that National will attempt is to fund some of those so-called tax cuts—temporary tax cuts as they will be—by the sale of assets. Again in the words of Dr Brash “minor changes at the margin will not do the trick”. Already National has announced that it will hock off Landcorp an entity that serves the Waikato region and a city that has a very proud record in terms of agricultural and horticultural research. I think that to hock off Landcorp would be a tragedy. I want to acknowledge the really good work that those farms owned by the people of New Zealand are doing in terms of research and best practice. 
Next to go on the block will be Solid Energy. It will be sold to the lowest bidder who will probably be overseas. Then on the block we will see the Accident Compensation Corporation being dismembered and dismantled. It will be sold to the lowest bidder—probably one of National’s local mates. Then of course National will put up on the next auction block other entities that it will start to get ready for sale—not immediately but first will be Kiwibank. Kiwibank will be made ready for sale. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Preamble 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 On looking at the preamble I see that it certainly follows the kinds of recitals to be found in treaty settlement bills. I recall my colleague Dr Mapp I think in relation to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill making a comment about whether we should look at making the preambles a little bit more aspirational than they sometimes are. National supports the bill but as I think I commented last night we certainly learn more as we go. I do not think there is any harm in that. The basic format of these bills has not changed since the 1990s when Sir Douglas Graham set the format in place. We have moved through a number of settlement claims now—although not so many in the last 6 years—and we have learnt things all the time and National members now think that maybe this could have been done in a different way. 
I acknowledge that the preamble is a very important part of the bill. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations might give some thought—well this Minister may not have time to think any more about it because once we have an election there will be a different Minister in the chair; it will be somebody from our side. The preamble is important. National acknowledges that. I imagine that the claimant group in question has had considerable input—claimants certainly used to—on the way these recitals are written. We must keep in mind that a settlement bill while it brings to a conclusion a certain phase of a tribe’s seeking to have injustice righted by the same token also represents a beginning. For every tribe that reaches a settlement it is an important beginning and it is important that the bill in some way reflect that. We all like to believe that once a settlement passes into law the tribe will be able to look forward and move on leaving injustice behind and having concluded with the Crown an agreement it is comfortable with. 
So this preamble probably does the job but in future we may give some thought to whether we can make the opening statements so to speak of a settlement bill more aspirational. I am sure my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp will have something more to say on that because it is important. Legislation like this is recognition by all of us of the important step a tribe has taken and the courage it has shown in finally concluding a settlement—in finally putting the burden of the weight of injustice behind it and moving on. That is essentially what these bills do. They form the basis for a better future the building blocks with which a tribe can further its own economic development. So it is very important that in these bills we get the right feeling in relation to the aspirations of the tribe—not only what its members want to achieve but also certainly what we as parliamentarians seek for them. 
As the Committee moves through the bill we will come to other matters that National members want to raise. National signalled those matters last night. We want to look at the relevant clauses more closely and particularly at schedule 12. We will certainly make some serious comment on that. We look forward to the debate proceeding. We support the bill but we think that improvements can be made and we hope the Ministers will listen. I know that the Hon Mark Burton has said he has taken on board the Opposition concerns which means I suppose that he will try to address them. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to pick up on some points that have been made by my colleague. 
I have to say generally that the preamble in this instance is relatively restrained. Some preambles have constituted essentially something of a rewriting of history. In this particular instance the preamble sets out to a large extent the oral traditions in relation to boundaries the places where the Nga Rauru Kitahi live and have lived and their relationship with those places. Those are of course quite legitimate things to put into a preamble. That is the first thing a preamble should establish: the relationships of the claimants with the place. That is a legitimate and reasonable thing to put into a preamble. 
The second thing a preamble must state is the nature of the breach that has caused the need for a settlement. By definition some breach of property rights some injustice must have occurred before a settlement takes place. National of course initiated the whole process of the Taranaki settlements of which this is one some years ago. So we acknowledge that breaches did occur. 
I am somewhat concerned however about the acknowledgments set out in recital (15) of the preamble in particular. I raised this concern last night in the second reading debate. My concern is that this paragraph presents in essence a one-sided view of history in which the Crown is completely wrong and the claimants are completely right. I do not believe that that is an accurate description of what occurred in 1860. It is not accurate to state: “the Waitara purchase and the wars that followed constituted an injustice and were therefore in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi …”. It is certainly true that those events did involve some injustices. That part is not in dispute. But to say without qualification that the totality of the events constituted an injustice misdescribes the historical record. 
The causes of the wars were multiple. Misunderstandings occurred. There were different views as to the extent and scope of the sovereign power. That is not I would have thought really in contest. Yet the way the preamble and particularly recital (15) is written gives no sense of the nuance of history. I guess that is the problem. 
When we put these things into the legislation we would not have needed much more to be done to give at least some sense of nuance in recital (15). That would have been a more honest approach. 
It is noteworthy—and I refer to this specifically because I know that Mr Pita Paraone will do so—that the leader of New Zealand First has called for a more honest examination of the nation’s history in both pre-European and post-European times. Frankly I think he has a point there. I believe that a preamble written in the way this is written simply does not acknowledge any of the nuances. It would have taken only an additional paragraph or paragraphs to have addressed that effectively in a way that provided a sense of weighing the reality of the history. It would have been more accurate to say that the Crown created injustices through the way it acted. It is not accurate to say that the Crown’s seeking to impose sovereignty through the Taranaki region—because this is effectively how it now reads—was of itself wrong. To say simply that the Waitara purchase and the wars that followed constituted an injustice does not adequately or properly recognise the events that actually took place back in the 1860s. That issue needs to be more fully considered in future settlements—a more dispassionate approach to New Zealand’s history that recognises the broader context in which these events actually took place. 
 That is probably my major concern with the way it is written. 
Of course it raises a much broader issue. I have taken a particular quibble if you will with recital (15) but the issue is much deeper. As this nation goes forward it cannot be realistic or indeed be of good grounding to say that everything that occurred in the 1860s was the fault of the Crown that the Crown was entirely in error that Maori were in every single case the aggrieved parties or that the war was simply an act of Crown aggression and that was all there was to it and that the Maori were simply the hapless aggrieved partner going about and minding their own business when suddenly they were attacked by this overwhelming Crown force. In reality wars have multiple reasons. Was it actually reasonable for Maori to be raising armies in a country governed by the Crown and where there was a single sovereignty? Is that the way we would really expect a modern nation State to exist? Is that a proper analysis of our history? 
I think that in reality the fact that the wars occurred bespeaks of itself Maori having difficulty coming to terms with the reality of sovereignty and the fact that they had actually lost the power to raise armies and to have whole regiments of troops and the like to resist Crown sovereignty. Certainly there were disputes—I am not doubting that—and certainly there were injustices but I query whether war was the right answer because it then precipitated war on the other side. So I think that the way these settlements are being written does not do justice to the events themselves. 
I might contrast it to the Ngai Tahu settlement. In the Ngai Tahu case there was absolutely no doubt that the Crown had breached a contract. It simply had not set aside the 10 percent that it was duty-bound to under the land purchase contract. There was a complete failure on the part of the Crown. We can say in the case of Ngai Tahu that Ngai Tahu were in essence suing on a breach of contract which is a self-evident fact. 
Wars that are in some respects in the nature of a civil war have much more complex origins. They also have a sense of misunderstandings about what had occurred in 1840 through the treaty. I think our history needs to be honest enough to recognise that complexity but I do not believe that this preamble does so. That is not to doubt that there were injustices for which there ought to be compensation but when we are passing legislation—because that is what we are doing today; writing it into the law of the land—we do need to be a little more honest with what actually happened because otherwise we do not have a solid foundation on which to advance forward as a nation. 
Surely that is what the whole point of these settlements are—to advance forward as a nation; the peoples of this nation going forward. We cannot do that with a revisionist approach towards history. We suggest to the Crown negotiators and to Ministers—irrespective of which Government they are in—that a more honest approach needs to be taken to truly advance forward and to close this chapter of our history. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I do appreciate the opportunity to hear Dr Mapp speak on these matters. I think that we have had some of the most interesting analysis over the past 3 or 4 months on these vexing issues that could be imagined. I think it is a great shame that nothing is being reported of the thoughtful reconsideration that has been given to the role of the settlements the treaty and the language. 
But I am concerned that it is all a waste of time because however wisely we analyse this bill or however much we might want to change it during the debate on the last bill of this kind for which I put forward amendments to change it the amendments were ruled out. They were ruled out because of Assistant Chairperson Simich’s statement that an amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill intended to give effect to that agreement. In other words that ruling made in 2003 makes this whole Committee stage nothing more than members flapping their gums. I do not say that members should not have time to do that but I wonder what this Committee thinks it is doing when it ratifies these agreements and debates them in a Committee stage—which is supposed to be the members’ chance to correct and amend them—when the Chairperson has ruled that members cannot amend them. 
It is a little odd because the Maori Affairs Committee itself has proposed some amendments and in this case they are amendments to the very section that we are looking at. The select committee has reframed the Maori text. So I think it is time that that ruling was reconsidered because it means that ACT cannot vote for this part. We too believe that this recital is wrong and we think that it would not take very much to correct it. But as we have found from experience no amendments will be accepted because this preamble is part of what has supposedly been agreed between the Crown and the iwi in question. 
Dr Mapp I believe probably would not have stated it as bluntly as I would have but he is absolutely right that this bill projects a view of the treaty that is utterly untenable. Article 2 of the treaty was an assurance of classical English property rights. The Maori version was an assurance not only to rangatira but also to the ordinary people that they would all have the rights of a king in his castle. To use that very eloquent English description the peasant in his hovel has the same right to exclude the king as the lord in his castle has. That was a novel and quite astounding assertion at that stage of human legal development. That kind of property right was being held out to Maori in the treaty and they agreed to it. 
Instead what we have in this part of the bill asserts a kind of mystical power to the treaty or a set of values that the Crown was assumed to have signed up to that no Government could ever sign up to. No Government could ever sign up to an agreement to hold people indemnified for the consequences of losing their land. People often sell land. In fact the whole treaty was supposed to ensure that they could sell their land instead of having it stolen or seized from them by force of arms. 
Here we have a craven Government solemnly promising people 160 years later that it will make amends for the inevitable accidents of history. What would be the fate of the United States if it was still apologising for Sherman’s March in the Civil War? And this stuff happened at the same time as that. Where would any modern country be if it spent its time examining its navel rewriting history and wailing over grievances—[ 
Interruption 
]—which are very real grievances and there is a good reason for them but it is not a good reason to be rewriting history—and then producing a bill like this which actually does not make amends. It gives the shadow of making amends and a whole lot of spurious rights. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to talk in a few moments about some of the points raised by Stephen Franks but before that I want to compliment Dr Mapp on his contribution to the Committee and on his comments relating to his concerns about the veracity of the preamble particularly recital (15). It is interesting that he chose to use the example of the Ngai Tahu settlement as being such a clean-cut sort of arrangement. He may be interested to know that when the dissidents from Parihaka were put in custody they were first incarcerated in Dunedin until some time later a helpful group from Rapaki offered to contain them on an island in what is currently called Lyttelton Harbour—those groups being supposedly more friendly to the Crown but ultimately in the position of having to settle grievance as well. 
 I do agree that in these recitals history should be well recorded and give ample weight to all the views and motivations around at the time. The problem we face here of course is that to get picky about that right now at this stage deprives those who are expecting a settlement and who have negotiated that settlement in good faith the outcome they are looking for. I know that that was not what Dr Mapp was intending. He was signalling that in a very short period of time when a different administration is handling these matters preambles such as the one in this bill will be dealt with in a different way. 
It is worth noting that when a bill like this is being dealt with increasingly the  
Hansard 
 record becomes important. The motivations of MPs in supporting this arrangement or in pointing out things they find are not quite right can be well understood by those who might look back on it in some years to come. I suggest to Mr Franks that in some part that is an answer to his concern. Obviously every party cannot be at every select committee looking at every piece of legislation. But ultimately Parliament has to try to deal with things in a way that recognises the fairness intended in any law before it. In fact we do that in this settlement process for the very reasons Mr Franks outlined—for the reason that article 2 guaranteed to Maori the same property rights that all British subjects understood they had. If that were not the case there would be no basis on which to bring treaty grievance claims to the Government for settlement. If the House were to consider that to its fullest extent we could be left to conclude only that the Maori Party will have very very soggy ground to stand on in future if it continues to be a participant in the process of this House because there is no room if these settlements are to progress for any suggestion that anybody other than the Crown has some obligation to settle grievances around land issues. 
I conclude my remarks by saying that although the National Party has reservations about a number of aspects in the textual arrangement of this bill we do not think it would be fair to vote against it because although we can all argue the history history is something that has a perspective applied to it. 
Jill Pettis 
: Because there’s an election looming. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Members have just heard the Wanganui fishwife scream across the House that an election is looming. Everyone knows that. The National Party has never voted against a settlement bill that has gone through the due process of consideration by this Parliament. It has indicated that there is only one arrangement of those the Government is entering into that we will not support. This bill is not one of them. These settlements are in fact a legacy of the former National Government and a testament to our commitment to the settlement process. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I thank the speakers for their contributions to what I might call a very minor part of the bill and I also thank Dr Wayne Mapp for his 10 minutes’ history lesson on matters totally irrelevant to it. As his colleague described he was probably being overly picky. I remind the previous speakers that basically the preamble is the summary of Nga Rauru Kitahi’s claim describing the tribe’s rohe. It is also a summary of the negotiations it entered into and agreed to with the Crown. 
In the Maori Affairs Committee we had a technical matter to deal with—and I think the ACT member Stephen Franks touched on it—in relation to the use of the Maori language. As a select committee—all the parties on it—we agreed that there were some matters in the Maori text that when translated we did not totally agree upon. We sought to amend them but because of technical reasons parliamentary counsel could not just make amendments; it had to remove the entire text. Following consideration by the committee the text was replaced with what was considered unanimously to be the correct text. So this is basically what the preamble is designed to do—as well as of course to include the title and commencement date of the legislation. 
I just needed to make that clear to previous speakers because this is one of those bills that did not receive a lot of controversy from other claimant groups that also share boundaries with the claimant group. For that reason I think that we are dealing with one of the very few pieces of legislation that we can describe as having a positive process and outcome. I did hear Dr Wayne Mapp refer to what he considered to be a clean-cut arrangement on the Tainui and Ngai Tahu claims. My recollection in having dealt with those two claims is that the preamble was not unlike the preamble in this bill. So let us say that they are all clean-cut. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I make this contribution on behalf of New Zealand First. Essentially we are talking about what the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui referred to as “a very minor part” but I think that its importance is much greater than the import the Minister might put on it. 
The preamble provides a background. If we are to talk about the issue which Mr Mapp referred to that it did not quite catch the facts of the matter—firstly I would suggest that the preamble would be much bigger than the rest of the bill and secondly it would also provide a much more detailed picture that might come back to embarrass not only the Crown but the claimants as well. While those are insufficient reasons not to have the preamble included as it stands now it does cover the more important issues. 
The member from ACT made an allusion to Sherman’s attack being revisited as if that is what we are doing in this whole process. I remind him that the tangata whenua the subject of that attack did not have the luxury of a treaty but I believe that his allusion does highlight the whole difficulty as I see it in terms of the process. Comments made from this side of the Chamber do have some validity. However we are denied the opportunity to contribute to that part of the process because by the time the bill comes to this House and goes to a select committee much of that part of the work on the claim has been done. 
If people want to start questioning the contents of what eventually ends up in the preamble then they need to be part of that process. But having said that I think that those who negotiate on the part of the Crown have been signalled the concern that this side of the Chamber has about the whole process. The Government may wish to consider those thoughts with dealing with future claims. 
The member Mr Mapp referred to the aggrievedness of particular parties. I say that Maori certainly felt aggrieved and we need to look at that aggrievement in the context of those times. If my recollection of that part of New Zealand history is correct then in respect of the attack at Parihaka only one party really adopted what one might regard as a “going to war” stance. So if the preamble as set out does any injustice it does so to the claimant group because the preamble does not quite identify the true intent of those who initiated the attack nor does it give a true picture of the effect the attack had on the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi. 
It is also said that we need to be honest but I say that honesty in this case may prove to be of some embarrassment to the Crown. In a way the preamble protects both parties and the protection is not just on one side of the ledger. The preamble provides a good outline of the situation the claimant group endured at the time and the course of action taken by the Crown and it reflects the Crown’s acknowledgment to the claimant group. 
I want to comment on the Maori text and although I take on board what the Minister had to say I am conscious that during the debate on the last settlement bill before the House when I called for an accurate—in my view—amendment of the English text into Maori he responded that it was just a matter of semantics. So I remind the Minister that we need to exercise some consistency because I have always maintained the view that the use of te reo text will provide a learning instrument for those learning the language in the future. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call. I was listening very carefully to Pita Paraone and was most interested in what he had to say about the preamble to the bill and what it did not contain. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Maori Affairs Committee so if the member gets another opportunity to take a call I would be interested to hear an explanation. If the preamble is lacking in its description of what actually happened to Nga Rauru Kitahi and the history of the area why was that not inserted into the preamble during the select committee process? I would genuinely like to hear about that. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 Firstly I want to address the point raised by Stephen Franks about Speakers’ rulings. I listened to him with some concern because I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper with regard to Part 4 and was therefore a little concerned that my amendment might be ruled out of order. I am pleased to say that when I look at Speaker’s ruling 102/4— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Your amendment is not out of order. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson. I note that the ruling basically says that one cannot change a settlement agreement reached between the Crown and other parties and I would be very wary if the House in dealing with legislation could not change it as long as it did not interfere with the terms of the settlement. Of course it does not do that. I thank you Madam Chairperson for your assurance that my amendment is not out of order. 
I want to look at the preamble to the bill and the comments that have been made about the retrospective analysis of history and the appropriateness of doing that. I note that the essential points of the preamble are in recital 15 where the Crown acknowledged to the Waitangi Tribunal in its interim response that: firstly the Waitara purchase and the wars that followed constituted an injustice and were therefore in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; secondly that the confiscation of land as it occurred in Taranaki also constituted an injustice and was therefore in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; thirdly that the confiscation had a severe impact upon the welfare economy and development of the iwi of Taranaki; fourthly that in general terms the delays in setting aside reserves contributed to the adverse effects of the confiscation; and finally that events relating to the implementation of the confiscation leading to the invasion of Parihaka in 1881 the invasion itself and its aftermath constituted a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. 
Firstly I should state that I acknowledge that it appears from the recitals that the Crown acknowledged those issues to the Waitangi Tribunal so that they were non-contested matters. I commend the Crown for doing that. I have no problem with looking back in terms of history and doing a reassessment of the events that happened. Clearly the process in the Waitangi Tribunal through the historians that it employs is to try to reach an accurate view of what went on. To some extent the Crown is prepared to admit certain events so they are not contested. In other circumstances they are contested and it is the job of the tribunal to sort out just where the facts lie. That is an important role and I do not see it as a biased rewriting of history at all even though we look at it in the light of a new understanding perhaps of what was happening at the time. 
There is an underlying factor here that I think we do not take much account of in terms of the relationship that the Crown had with Maori at the time. It is something I think we need to recognise and I see a failure to appreciate it particularly in the National Party the New Zealand First Party and the ACT party. I see those parties really coming at these issues in terms of Maori grievance on the basis that the Crown arrived the Crown in one way or another assumed sovereignty and therefore the Crown through its Government imposed certain things and the Maori resistance was therefore somewhat unlawful. I am not sure whether they go so far as to believe that the Crown reaction was over the top which is effectively what this is talking about in terms of confiscations—that effectively the reaction was over the top. Nevertheless there is this simple understanding that the Government was the Government that it had the power and that resisting the power and Maori action were exactly the same and should be treated the same as any New Zealand citizen who resisted the authorities and resisted the police. 
One of the things we tend to lack in all this debate is to understand that the coming of particularly the British to New Zealand was the conflict or the “bringing together” to use a more impassive term of two sorts of governance entities. The Crown in the British tradition is one that had a Government ruling on a national basis and the people. In the Maori tradition one did not have a Government that ruled all the people. There were a number of iwi who were regional groups that had a governance role over the people. So here we had a “single Government ruling its people” system confronting a governance entity that was disparate and comprised a number of different iwi. 
 The question is how we amalgamate that. What is an appropriate way to amalgamate those two sorts of governance relationships? What has tended to happen—and I see this from the parties I mentioned—is an assumption that the governance of the country then became the governance of all people and iwi did not play any part in the process. That was largely because the sort of iwi groupings in that sort of governance authority had no parallel in terms of the British justice system that was then imposed. The closest one could get is local authorities but then local authorities were subject to central governance. Therefore it was a question of how iwi and the iwi governance structure then related into this process. I think that is what the treaty was endeavouring to do. 
I see a big distinction between article 2 and article 3 of the treaty. Article 3 states that Maori individually would have the same rights and duties as British citizens. That meant that as individuals Maori had the same relationship with the Government as any other individual. That is why I think it is legitimate to say that all New Zealanders are equal and there should be one law for all and all that sort of stuff that we hear from National members. I agree with that but what they fail to recognise is that article 2 of the treaty protected the place of iwi as a distinct authority that was unique to the New Zealand context. It is really the issue of how the iwi structure as it existed at that time relates to modern New Zealand that is the issue we are always confronting. 
It seems to me that we have to and we ought to acknowledge that iwi as a whole have a place that is somewhere between the governance of the whole country and the people as individuals and that the iwi protection in article 2 is something that we need to somehow acknowledge and recognise as we move forward as a nation. Therefore in the blending of the two cultures or the two nations—two peoples in one nation is perhaps the best way of phrasing it—we need to recognise that there is a place in terms of iwi. I do not think that at one extreme it is a replacement of governance so that effectively it is a two-tier system where Maori have their own authority. That is an apartheid-type system and I do not think that is what it intends. But neither do I think it means that iwi are simply no better than any other social grouping—the local club or society or someone else who might get some sort of grant from the Government. Iwi have a particular role in terms of their own people that needs to be acknowledged. I think it needs to be acknowledged in some sort of partnership function. 
So I come back to the preamble. When the Crown starts to take away the rights of iwi in terms of their own property and their governance structure and starts to destroy that as happened in these instances then that is where things get out of line. I think it is quite appropriate for the Crown to look back now looking at a fresh approach in terms of an understanding of the place of iwi in traditional New Zealand and say that iwi were destroyed and that there was an undermining of the governance authority that was protected by the treaty. So this acknowledgment is quite appropriate and it is appropriate to look at it from a contemporary basis and to say that these were wrongs that were done and we need to put them right. Of course this is a settlement agreement and therefore we are looking historically. I am also very interested in looking at the future and asking what is the place then of iwi in that sort of structure in today’s New Zealand. That is what I think we should be focusing a lot of our debate on and I am certainly keen to see that progressed as we talk further about the place that iwi should have within the structure of New Zealand governance. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call to respond to the question from the member for Whanganui. My comments were made in the context of the implication by the National member—which was in a way confirmed by another speaker—that the apology itself seemed to be over the top and the implication that there should be more accuracy in the preamble. My response was that if we did make it more accurate it could be more embarrassing to both parties to the agreement. 
I want to comment on the remarks made by the speaker before last. I remind him and the people in this Committee that we should not place too much emphasis on the word “iwi” given that those who signed the treaty were of hapu. I would suggest and even argue that the concept of iwi is not a Maori concept but is something that came after the missionaries imposed their will on this country. Be that as it may the preamble may in some people’s eyes seem over the top but given the historical events that affected the claimant group I think that it is in order. 
Preamble agreed to. 
Part 1 Acknowledgements and apology by the Crown to Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi and preliminary provisions 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 This is the part that deals with the apology and the acknowledgments of those matters that formed the basis of this claim in the first place and are the underlying reasons why Nga Rauru have laboured for some time now to reach a settlement. I think that given that colleagues have been quite fulsome in their comments on the preamble it is probably helpful to look at clause 8 “Text of acknowledgements in English”. Some of it I think is worth traversing because the reality is that while we in this Chamber are privy to a number of settlements now to the point that we often become a little bit used to what they are about and the provisions they contain I guess that as parliamentarians we should always be mindful that the public on whose behalf this House settles these claims are not always so privileged. 
In the case of the Taranaki claims particularly which is where the confiscations began it is a part of our history that—notwithstanding the comments made by my colleague Dr Mapp and others—is sad and the reason for which we are now in this Chamber to make amends. 
Clause 8 states that the Crown acknowledges the cumulative effect of its breaches of the treaty and its principles and that these have contributed to the dismantling of Nga Raurutanga and loss of Nga Rauru Kitahi land language and social structures. Further on clause 8 talks about Nga Rauru Kitahi suffering loss of life during the wars that preceded including the lives of unarmed children killed by Government militia at Handley’s woolshed in an unprovoked attack. They suffered the destruction of their homes property cultivations and taonga at the Crown’s hands during the wars and as a result of the Crown’s “scorched earth” policy. The Waitangi Tribunal of course traverses this in much more detail and those who are interested should be referred to the comprehensive reports issued in relation to the Taranaki claim. 
When we read of children being killed in an unprovoked attack then clearly that is a part of our history that we would prefer to forget and of course the only way we can have that put behind us is to make the kinds of amends that have been made in this particular settlement. 
 Having said all of that I think the comments I made in relation to the preamble are applicable as well. It is very important to acknowledge just exactly why the Crown the Government on behalf of New Zealanders has reached a settlement with this tribe. It is not an inconsequential settlement either although in terms of what the tribe went through I guess it is. In the end how does one make amends for loss of life due to an unprovoked attack? Looking back at that—and I am referring particularly to the attack at Handley’s woolshed—I am not saying that the whole of it necessarily was unprovoked. On the other hand if one tries to look at it from the point of view of the tribe we see that not many years earlier a treaty had been signed ostensibly giving the tribe protection for its land resources etc. It had agreed to the establishment of British government and laws only to find some few years later that in fact those undertakings promises call them what you will—Maori actually call it a sacred pact—were being totally ignored. 
It is all very well for us to stand here in the 21st century in 2005 to try to set these provisions or set out the history and make judgments. As I have said the acknowledgments are basically the heart of the settlement. They are very important to the tribe and it is very important that the public of New Zealand know why Parliament in voting for a settlement commits the kinds of resources it does in order to make amends for what took place many many years ago. 
The apology is a very important part of a settlement. Over the last 15 years I have interacted with numbers of claimant tribes. Having sat on the tribunal for 10 years I think I have quite a keen appreciation of how important the apology is. I have heard some tribes say that although a settlement of money and lands is great because of course they need that to provide a base for them to move forward in an economic sense an apology is an absolute must. In the end it gives credence to the fact that they suffered hurt and harm many many years ago. In the case of the Taranaki tribes the losses were quite tragic. So it is only right and proper that an apology is set out in this settlement bill. 
In clause 10 the Crown apologises to the ancestors. It is clearly the wish of the tribe itself to have those acknowledgments put in. The current generation on behalf of the ancestors take and accept the apology. Clause 10(2) states: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises” for its actions during the wars for “the destructive and demoralising effects of these actions … and loss of life during the wars.” and so on. 
The apology in this case is reasonably brief but not so brief that it does not do the job the claimants wish it to do. We recall that in the Tainui settlement the apology was actually presented at Government House. That is how important the issue of an apology is to the tribes. 
So all in all although this bill follows the accepted format this part is very important. It acknowledges what has occurred to the tribe and also apologises for those events. It is hoped that as with the preamble all these parts together will provide the backdrop that enables the tribe to put behind it those things that have hurt it over the generations—those causes of harm it has carried for so long. They are very very important. 
So on balance I do not have any queries to the Minister in relation to this. No doubt other members may but I for one certainly accept that Part 1 is a very important part. The reason that National is supportive is reasonably set out in it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 First of all I would like to acknowledge the very thoughtful contribution made by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu in relation to Part 1. 
I want to turn to two particular points. The first is the apology and the second is the text of the acknowledgments. I am doing them quite deliberately in that order because the apology essentially refers to regrets to the destructive and demoralising effects of the wars on Nga Rauru Kitahi and the confiscations. That is actually how it should be because the fundamental reason that we as a Parliament with the exception of one party only are dealing with the settlement process is that there is profound recognition that one of the consequences of the wars—the most significant and enduring consequence as it affected Maori communities—was pretty much the complete loss of those communities’ ancestral lands and economic base. We live with the echoes of those actions today and I accept the reality of that. Much of the interracial problem that exists in New Zealand today has its origins back then and we would be less than honest not to recognise that reality. 
Jim Bolger before he was Prime Minister in a speech to a National Party conference in 1989 which I remember well challenged the National Party—and one can imagine that back in 1989 it was actually quite a significant challenge to the National Party—that this was part of New Zealand’s history that we simply had to address because if we did not we would not be able to bring closure and harmony to our country. It has been a more difficult process than anyone accepted back then it would be and I acknowledge that both the National Government and the current Labour Government have found that to be the reality. But the whole point of the restoration—and the claims settlement process is intended to provide an element of restoration—is about recognising the totality of the confiscations and that they wreaked such havoc not only on the Maori economic base but also I suggest on the Maori psychology and I know that from speaking to members of my own family. 
That is I guess the activating reason for the settlement. The second point I wish to deal with is the events that occurred in the 1860s—not the confiscations so much but the wars themselves. My colleague Georgina te Heuheu properly noted the attack on the lives of unarmed children which we would all deplore but I want to go back a little from that to the totality of the wars themselves. What were they actually about? In 1840 there was a sovereignty treaty a transfer of sovereignty and that is not really disputed today except by the radicals. Even Mita Ririnui as a Minister of the Crown—let us not forget—must recognise that he accepts the sovereignty of the Crown; otherwise he could hardly take the warrant of the Crown. The reality is we have the modern-day Parliament and the modern-day Government. That is a direct outcome of the treaty of the transfer of sovereignty. 
Although the wars had a whole variety of causes—improper purchases in the Waitara case invasions responses and so forth—I think the wars can properly be characterised as sovereignty wars. Dr Belich has done some work on that in his own books along with Michael King. Imagine if the Crown had not won—what would the consequence have been? The consequence would have been a loss of sovereignty—in effect the overturning of the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840. There would not have been a transfer of sovereignty. Sovereignty would effectively have been regained by the iwi where they had won their war if you will. 
Dr Belich’s books refer to Titokowaru’s war and he was actually successful. In a series of quite brilliant at least in a military sense engagements he defeated Crown troops. It has always been a bit of a puzzle to modern historians as to why he did not capitalise on those successes because he had a window of opportunity if you will effectively to regain sovereignty in the South Taranaki. He never did. He withdrew from the field of battle. Maybe the relevant iwi simply did not have the long-term capacity to sustain it and they recognised the reality of that. 
So the wars in essence were sovereignty wars rather than land wars. They had a series of causes and I do not think it is right that the Crown should apologise for that and indeed it has not and that is an interesting point. It is one might say the contradiction between clause 8 which sets out the events of the wars and some of the depredations during the wars—in particular the loss of life when unarmed children were killed by Government militia—and clause 10. Clause 10 does not apologise for the retention of sovereignty. What it does apologise for are the destructive actions of the confiscations and the loss of the economic and social base. I believe that it is important that we record some of this in  
Hansard 
 at this point. 
The final point I want to turn to is this particular acknowledgment in clause 8(4)(f): “when land was finally returned”—and some 3000 acres were returned—“Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi found that its customary title to this land had been compulsorily extinguished by the Crown’s confiscation and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles:”. I have to say that is a misstatement. If the land had remained as customary land it could not have been sold. That was the whole problem with customary land: it was incapable of being mortgaged being sold or being dealt with in any realistic way. Many people might say that was a good thing but I would argue that economic development actually requires modern title. I acknowledge that Maori land law title under the current Act Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is a form of modern title; it enables people to deal with the land. So rather than that being a loss or indeed a breach of the treaty which it was not it was actually an enhancement. That is not to suggest that all the things that occurred in the initial phase of what was then known as the Native Land Court were right—they were not—but the principle of turning customary land into a modern land tenure system was actually a benefit for Maori. They needed to have it. If the land had stayed as customary land I suggest it could never have been properly dealt with. That is one of the tragedies of much of the Third World—those countries do not have modern land law systems. That is widely recognised by development economists. So I think it is false for that issue to be part of the acknowledgments. 
I close with this final point. I have made these points and I am putting them on the record in  
Hansard 
. I know perfectly well that we cannot change these acknowledgments or the apology and National is not seeking to do so. We recognise that when the select committee gets these bills there has already been an agreement. But what is important to do in the debate is to record the way we view these things and how we might do them differently in the future. That is the value of the debate. Mr Stephen Franks made the point that it is a pity it is not recorded. It actually is of course; it is recorded in  
Hansard 
. It is there for us to read and the intent of a number of us is to develop over a period of time a collection of ideas that can inform us in the future as we do our settlements. 
National will be voting for this bill but we do make those points for the record. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution to this part of the debate particularly in relation to the clauses that cover the text of the acknowledgments both in Maori and in English. I want to say straight off that I have no problem with regard to the Maori text. It is an accurate translation of the English text—or should I say the English text is an accurate translation of the Maori text. But I believe that in the acknowledgments lies the nub of this whole bill. They articulate the reasons for this settlement. I want to pick up on the comments made by the previous speaker and say that I believe that what is missing from the acknowledgements is the background as to why the events happened in the first place which is needed so that readers in the future will have a better understanding of why martial law was proclaimed in Taranaki and of all that sort of detail. I think that understanding is important particularly for those members of our society who have some ambivalence about the whole settlement process. I think that if the background is articulated more in that context then people may have a better understanding of why we are going through this process. 
Of course this settlement will it is to be hoped put to rest the effects of the loss of life and the land confiscation and the impact of all that on Nga Rauru Kitahi all of which has been found and acknowledged to be a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown. Therefore the apology is important as it is in any settlement. How effective an apology is can be felt only by the recipients of that apology which in this case is the claimant group. In terms of the outcome of this bill although it is laudable that the Crown is acknowledging all that and that some compensation is being considered it will never suffice and therefore will never provide full restitution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PITA PARAONE 
: As I was saying before the break clauses 9 and 10 which state the text of the apology in both English and Maori actually comprise in my view the nub of the purpose of this bill. Although some members feel that the content of the apology may be over the top if I have any criticism of it in terms of being wanting it relates to why certain activities for which the Crown is apologising occurred. Those activities were clearly a breach of the treaty. For instance why did the Government of the time decide to go to war? What was the real purpose of going to war? Although some who take an interest in New Zealand history may have their own views if I have any criticism of the text of the apology then it is in that area. Other than that I think the bill is a reflection of the intent of the Crown. The fact that the claimant groups have accepted the apology means that this Committee should lend its support to these clauses. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to take part in the debate on Part 1. I do not think there is any doubt that New Zealand had an appalling history of failing to honour the treaty that the Crown signed with Maoridom in the early days. There is an obligation for us to try to find some way to settle the Crown’s failure to meet those obligations. I was happy to be a member of Cabinet when it settled a number of those obligations along the way. Having said that I want to give a warning to everybody. 
Actually let me deal first with what Part 1 is about. It is an acknowledgment and it is to do with an apology. I do not mind how strong the apology is. 
Mark Peck 
: I’m sorry. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It can be much more than: “I’m sorry.” It can be: “We were wrong.”; it can be: “We shouldn’t have done that.” Quite frankly I think that an apology often solves a problem and allows one to move on quickly. One thing I have learnt in politics is that whenever people get themselves on the wrong side of an issue they should very quickly say that they are sorry about it and move on. There is no question that from the Crown’s side if we want to talk in labour relations - type language about good faith we can say the Crown did not act in good faith. It did not act in good faith in a number of the settlements that have been done—in the cases of Tainui Ngai Tahu Taranaki and others. 
But I will say the following to the Maori claimants. I always have a really strong nervousness about any focus on the past. I want the claimants to make sure that their focus now once the settlement has been done is on their future in terms of breaking the cycle. For example I argued quite strongly in Cabinet when the first of these settlements was being done—Doug Graham was negotiating with Bob Mahuta—that there was no question that Tainui had been done a serious wrong. Doug Graham gave us a lot of evidence about what the British troops had done when they came south of the Bombay Hills and we learnt they had acted in a way that was just appalling. But my argument to Doug Graham was that we should try to settle the claim by trying to break what I thought was a cycle of dependency that Maoridom had fallen into. My view was that a good way to settle some of the claims would be to ask Maori to give us their best 500 kids each year whom we would put through the tertiary education system—not give them a low-grade hip-hop tour or twilight golf sessions—for free. I said that over say a 20-year period we should amortise the cost of that—$174 million I think it was—in order for us to see that figure. I said that we would break the cycle that we would create a Maori middle class that had high levels of productivity and that those people would be good-earning people who were focused on the value of education and so on. 
I guess I have a single message to the iwi for which this particular claim settlement is being progressed tonight. I say good on the iwi. It is probably getting only a very small percentage of what the actual damage to it was. However I ask the iwi please not to think that the best thing to do is to keep living in the past. I ask it to please say that it will make sure the settlement is focused on achieving outcomes. 
If I had reservations about the Tainui settlement they were dispelled dramatically by the way that Ngai Tahu began to act. Ngai Tahu just said that it would be there for the betterment of its people and that it would bring in whoever that took. That iwi brought in a few white honkies—I do not think “honky” is allowed any more is it Mr Chairperson? Was “honky” ruled out? I am happy to use the term because I am one of them. Ngai Tahu brought in some white honkies to manage the place. [ 
Interruption 
] If the Chairperson is shaking his head I will withdraw the term. I do not mind doing that but I did not think “honky” was ruled out. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What other colour do they come in? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Whatever. Honkies are only white I suppose; Gerry Brownlee is right. Ngai Tahu brought in whoever it took to get its investments to grow to get some relevant income streams for its people and to start to lift their performance. I say good on Ngai Tahu; I think it is a lesson to us all. A young guy from Ngai Tahu who was running Shotover Jet in Queenstown once came before a select committee. I have never seen a more stunningly focused businessman—he talked about outcomes and making it happen. There was almost a tear in my eye like I had when Michael Campbell won the US Open. I say good on Ngai Tahu. 
These settlements are about making sure that if we address the wrongs of the past we are careful about that. There have been wrongs in the past forever—for example what Britain did to the Jews. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 We are in the Committee stage of yet another settlement. This is a settlement for the Taranaki area and a settlement for one of the more outrageous actions against Maori. 
Having said that I say that when I read through this bill I have some grave reservations about it. Anyone reading this bill—and a lot of young Maori will read it—will think that this is an authoritative account of the history and of course it is not. 
One reason is that it fails to mention that this Parliament has made a number of attempts at settling this particular grievance. As early as the beginning of the 20th century there was an attempt. There was another one between the First and Second World Wars. The first Labour Government gave a settlement as well in 1947. The Hon Rex Mason Minister of Justice stood in this House gave an account of what had happened and said it was wrong. If we pull up the  
Hansard 
 we will find that he gave an account of what had happened in this particular case. Parliament then voted for a compensation package that people now say is derisory but if we translated it into today’s dollars we would see that it was a very substantial settlement. 
When I read this account I see unless I have missed it that that information has been left out. I think that is arrogance on the part of this Parliament. I think it is very difficult for us to apologise for something that happened in the past. We can regret it but who are we to apologise? It is like members here saying it is extraordinary that we sent young men to Gallipoli. We cannot apologise for that: those were the actions; that was the culture; and that was the time. So I have difficulty with an apology. 
I also have difficulty with the way the bill is written because I do not think it is written even-handedly. In saying that I am not failing to acknowledge that what happened was wrong. In fact many European New Zealanders—to use a politically incorrect phrase now but it would not have been so then—said at the time that what had happened was wrong. But when we read these sorts of accounts we see that that does not come through. 
I have also read the Waitangi Tribunal’s account. I think frankly that that is completely over the top because in portraying things it goes too far in creating a sense of grievance. 
There is a lot of truth in what the previous member said in that one cannot rewrite the past. One of the most unfortunate things about the settlement process is that we have seen some of the brightest and best of Maori looking back and spending their time in trying to find ways in which they can get a better settlement. The number of bright young Maori lawyers who I now see working in the treaty industry is a tragedy for this country. 
I hope that the claimants who get the money will use it well and use it to go forward. Having said that I think that we ought at least to record in the House that we are no better than the Hon Rex Mason who attempted to settle this particular claim in 1947—and the House did settle. 
I have heard MPs get up and say that this House has never acknowledged what happened. That is a load of rubbish. This House has acknowledged that what happened was wrong and it is a form of arrogance on our part—and a lack of real historical knowledge—when we start to act as if we are somehow more moral than our forefathers who were engaged in this matter. I have grave doubts about what is a new PC custom which is that we somehow have the right in the House to make moral judgments about those who have gone before and to rewrite settlements. The only argument one can put in favour of that process is that if it enables Maori to feel that grievances have been healed then perhaps the apology is justified. 
We are all aware that there was considerable civil disobedience in that area of the country. One example is that in World War II many notices for conscription in that area were ignored because Maori thought and said that until those matters were settled they should not have to take any notice. Members may not know this but the Fraser Labour Government which enforced conscription notices very vigorously did not do so in that area. Part of the reason it did not was that the Fraser Labour Government realised there were considerable problems and as I said after World War II that Government came to the House with a settlement. 
But one wonders how many settlements will be required. I wonder whether in 20 or 30 years’ time—maybe 40—MPs will get up and make speeches saying that it is outrageous that this matter has never been acknowledged that it should be dealt with properly and that the settlement given today is derisory. No doubt in 30 years’ time the amount of money that we are putting forward today—which we think is a lot—will probably not be enough to buy a house or whatever after the results of inflation. 
So I say to the House that I regret the bill and I say shame on the Crown negotiators for not insisting that there is a correct and accurate record. It is a matter of shame that those civil servants who wrote the legislation clearly thought they could malign the reputation of people like the Hon Rex Mason and could completely ignore the fact that there have been previous attempts at making a settlement. I am ashamed that a Labour Government is not prepared to have any pride in its own record in attempting to make a settlement previously. 
We may say now that the settlements were not enough but to write them out of history is a new form of Stalinism—rewriting history is the sort of thing the Russians used to do. This account is no more accurate than the accounts that people rail against. That concerns me because if one is not prepared to face up and write the history correctly then one has to wonder whether the settlement will last. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Interpretation 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Before turning to Part 2 I note that I was very interested in the speech by the Hon Richard Prebble. Unlike the comments that were made by his colleague Stephen Franks what he said gives pause for a lot of thought. However as a member of the Government that introduced the format for the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 he ought to recognise that the earlier attempts to settle this claim were not measured against the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles—and I am not saying that that was right or wrong. The jurisdiction for this process is the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles whereas in the earlier attempts that was not the case. Part 2 deals with interpretation and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is to do with definitions. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes definitions—I am coming to that absolutely. I turn to clause 13 “Meaning of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi”. National MPs have made a number of comments on this particular issue. It is certainly right that there should be some clarity around those who are entitled to benefit from a settlement. This part raises the issue of adopted children and it includes the issue of whangai as well. I am sure my colleague Gerry Brownlee will take a call on this part because we have raised this issue on a number of occasions. Basically the entitlement in terms of these settlements and in terms of the tikanga of most tribes if not all is based on blood and inheritance—blood lines whakapapa lines. That is clearly set out in subclause (1) of clause 13. 
The issue of the position of adopted children and whangai—particularly where whangai who have been brought into a family have no blood connection to the family concerned—was raised in the Maori Affairs Committee. The Adoption Act overrides any argument claimants may as to who may benefit and so we are told does the Human Rights Act. But clause 13 states: “In this Act Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi … means the iwi or collective group composed of …”—and it sets out various categories all of which depend upon the issue of descent. It names the hapu which come under the umbrella description of “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi” and it also includes any whanau hapu or group of individuals who come within those hapu categories. Hapu of course are made up of individuals who have clear descent lines from the original tupuna which in this case means Nga Rauru Kitahi tupuna. This clause includes a recognition of persons who have exercised customary rights by virtue of their descent lines and so on. 
So it is an issue for tribes that no matter what is said in this legislation the reality is that those who have no direct whakapapa links to Nga Rauru Kitahi are by virtue of adoption and being whangai included anyway. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge as I did in my second reading speech yesterday that the issues the member has just raised are significant. As she indicated this is not the first time they have come up in relation to a settlement bill. 
They were discussed at some length I believe at the Maori Affairs Committee the time and place in the end for us to address issues relating to the conflict if you like between children with whakapapa to a particular iwi—in this case Nga Rauru—and the provisions of the Adoption Act and indeed the Human Rights Act. It is perhaps then when we are reviewing things like the Adoption Act which we are reviewing currently that there is an opportunity to look at it in its wider context. There will no doubt be diverse views around the House at that time about the issues raised. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call with regard to clause 13. I am probably just as guilty as anyone for not having picked up this issue during the select committee deliberations but on looking at the meaning of Nga Rauru Kitahi I see that according to clause 13(1)(a)(i) it means “individuals descended from 1 or more Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi tupuna; and (ii) every individual referred to in paragraph (a)(i); and (iii) every individual who is a member of a hapuu referred to in paragraph (b);”. Paragraph (b) then goes on to list all those hapu that quite clearly the negotiators on behalf of the claimant group have agreed should be included. 
I personally have no difficulty with that but I do have some difficulty with subclause (2) which states: “In this section and section 14 Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi tupuna means a person who exercised customary rights—(a) by virtue of being descended from—(i) Rauru;”. That is fine; in the make-up of iwi groups I understand that there is the iwi and then descended from that are the hapu. My real concern though is with subparagraph (ii) of clause 13(2)(a): “a recognised ancestor of any of the hapuu referred to in subsection (1)(b);”. So I pose the question of whether there is an ancestor of a particular hapu listed in clause 13(1)(b) who is not a descendant of the tupuna known as Rauru. If there is such a tupuna then I have to ask how has that tupuna become part of this settlement. 
As we know hapu descend from a clearly defined tupuna but in terms of subclause (2)(a)(ii) there is the suggestion that there may be a recognised or eponymous head of a particular hapu who may not have descended from the tupuna known as Rauru. So the provision does pose some questions as to the possible entitlement of a hapu whose eponymous head does not descend from the tupuna described as Rauru. Perhaps the Minister might take some advice from his officials and explain how that situation has been able to get to this stage. Otherwise I think it is a compliment to the iwi of Nga Rauru Kitahi that they are able to outline a number of their hapu whom they wish to have included in this settlement. 
I note for instance that there are a couple of Ngati Hine hapu and I suppose that if I had the time I would be able to make some connection with the Ngati Hine in the north. But I am sure that with Ngati Hine Waiatarua and Ngati Hine Waiata there is probably some connection between those two hapu—so there should be if in fact they both descend from the tupuna known as Rauru. However if there is a hapu included in that list whose eponymous head does not descend from Rauru then one needs to ask how come that hapu is included in this settlement. Other than that I do not think we have any truck with the definitions that have been outlined but we would ask the Minister to take a call to address that issue. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think the honourable member made a good point and I would like to hear from the Minister. But I was stunned to hear that New Zealand First does not have any problems with the definitions apart from that because I am very interested in clause14(1)(a) which deals with the meaning of the historical claims—it “means every claim” and it states: “(i) is or is founded on a right arising—(A) from the Treaty of Waitangi or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi;”. Now I was under the mistaken impression that the New Zealand First Party was not going to vote for any more legislation that contained that phrase—“the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”—for a very good reason because what does it mean? 
Every member knows that because of the passing this bill some meaning will have to be given to that phrase so I ask the honourable Minister in the chair to tell the Committee exactly what is meant by the statement: “or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. I ask the Minister what they are and I ask him to please set them out clearly. Obviously he must know what they are—otherwise he would not be asking this Committee to vote for the provision. Surely we cannot be being asked to vote for something the Minister does not know the meaning of. If he does not know what it means perhaps his officials could tell him but the ACT party did not vote against the first part partly because I thought that if we were going to make an apology then it should be unanimous. But I advise the Minister that I cannot see how any real parliamentarian can possibly vote for this part unless we all know what it means. 
I want to make it quite clear—and I have been a member of the Maori Affairs Committee—that I have no idea what that phrase means. Well I have some vague ideas but I think it is an elastic concept. In my time in the House it has completely changed so I would like to have from the Minister a very clear succinct statement which would be very helpful for people coming along later so that we all know what the House of Representatives has voted for tonight. So could the Minister please take a call and tell the Committee what is meant by “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and perhaps New Zealand First Party members could also explain to me why they are voting for this part when I understood that one of the things they are campaigning on around the country is that they are opposed to this sort of loose phrase being included in legislation. 
I have to say that I disagree with Mr Peters about a wide range of things but I think the statements he has made in criticising the introduction of this sort of loose terminology into the statute book are correct. We have criticised the courts for some of the bizarre decisions they make on those issues but when we introduce a phrase of this sort we are inviting judges to take our jobs to start being members of Parliament and to write the law. If we are going to pass that clause as it is written we are inviting trouble in the future and no MP can complain if the principles of the treaty turn out to be something that will come as a great shock to all members of Parliament. 
 It would be very helpful—it would certainly help the ACT party to decide whether we should vote for this section or against it—if the Minister would simply rise and since he is asking us to vote for the principles of the treaty set out for the Committee what those principles are. I am sure that a well-prepared Minister would not have come here not expecting this question. I am sure he was expecting it and I would like to think that he has prepared a succinct statement. That would be very helpful. I can see that some of the Maori members of Parliament are also looking forward to hearing from the Minister of the Crown an authoritative clear statement—[ 
Interruption 
] The member has me even more worried. He says that I am at fault. If I am at fault it is high time this was put a stop to. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I accept your call to speak Mr Chairman with great reluctance because I thought that the question put to the Minister by Mr Prebble was extremely reasonable. I am absolutely staggered that the Minister actually sank further into his chair when the bell rang to avoid any impression that he might have been about to stand and address this particular question before the Committee. I find it much as Mr Prebble does a bit alarming that this settlement appears to be founded on matters arising not only from the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi but also from common law including aboriginal title or customary law. I am not sure exactly what the confines of that might be. 
It concerns me a little that the Minister is so very reluctant to deal with this aspect of the bill. We know he is a relatively new Minister in this role but one would think that he might have asked officials: “Why are we doing this?”. I am sure that Ministers in all sorts of other areas ask their officials that question although I am not convinced that the Minister of Finance asked his officials that question prior to reading the Budget. It may be that the Government simply does not ask officials what is going on but asks them what they want it to do. If that is the answer that is fine but the Minister should let the Committee know. I would think though that he would have asked: “Why are we doing this?” and got the history. 
I am a bit staggered actually to learn a lot of the history tonight. I feel somewhat guilty that during the select committee process I did not find out the many aspects of this matter of which Mr Prebble spoke in the Committee tonight. It is easy when a particular story is put in front of one just to accept that everything is absolutely kosher. I suppose one learns that perhaps one cannot always believe the civil servants. I have to say that the latest missive from the Public Service Association causes me a great deal of concern about the quality of the advice that goes to any Government. I cannot believe how hell-bent that organisation seems to be on undoing the very people it is supposed to represent. 
I come back to the issue that has properly been raised by Mr Prebble and I ask the Minister whether he intends to make an explanation. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I am continuing to listen to the member with interest. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This is the Committee of the whole House. This is the part of the process when members get to ask a Minister a question. I have asked the Minister a question and he has said he is still listening. Does the Minister want me to say it a little louder? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: No certainly not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: So he has clearly heard the question but knows it is impossible for him to answer. If it is not perhaps he would indicate—where has he gone? I cannot believe it. He has now sunk so low in the chair for fear that we might imagine he is rising to answer the question that we cannot even see him. I cannot believe that. If he is going to answer the question he should. I do not mean to make light of this because it is not funny. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Stop misleading the listeners. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister must indicate whether he will take the call and give the Committee what should be a very simple answer. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: In the fullness of time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In the fullness of time the Minister will take a call. Well I have to say that the time for discussing this particular bill seems to be growing longer by the minute because if the Minister leaves us without answers he will leave us in the position of having continually to ask the same question. So I will sit down now. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I guess it is a bit disappointing. I was waiting with bated breath as well to hear the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations recite what the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in the bill before us means. National members certainly asked that at the Maori Affairs Committee and although we were given a response of sorts I do not think anybody was necessarily satisfied. 
I am not endeavouring to get the Minister out of the hole he seems to have dug himself into by not taking the call to give a reasonable response to what I think are reasonable questions but I do have a thought on the matter. Again it has nothing to do with the question the Hon Richard Prebble asked New Zealand First as to why it would support the legislation given that confirmation came yesterday that under the treaty policy of the Rt Hon Winston Peters New Zealand First would delete the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from all legislation. 
I note that Richard Prebble was going to get to his feet. He may or may not recall that the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” actually first appeared in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act which was brought into law by a Labour Government of which the Hon Richard Prebble was a member. Much as some of us may have difficulty now with the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” I would have thought that a legitimate response might be that it actually forms the jurisdiction for these claims and therefore for these settlements. That is the jurisdiction laid down in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 as the Hon Richard Prebble knows or should remember. Until there is a change to that for those of us who wish to see some resolution of these historic injustices it is in my view the only jurisdiction we have. 
Perhaps the Rt Hon Winston Peters recognises that as well although looking at some of his statements it seems to me that he has missed the point that this phrase first appeared in the 1975 Act. He keeps referring to I think the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 which is patently wrong. It would be really great if those who think they know the origin of this phrase could get it right. I could still prove to be wrong about it but I do not think I am. That is where the phrase originated. 
Standing here as a member of the National Party which supports the settlement of historic injustices I have difficulty understanding how we as a party can support a settlement if we do not also recognise the jurisdiction under which these claims are filed. The source of that jurisdiction is the 1975 Act. 
 That still does not get the Minister off the hook though. Having sat on the tribunal for some years I have a view as to what “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” might be. The Minister has the legacy of the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer who set some principles when he was in Government and maybe the Minister could even confirm whether they are the principles now being referred to when we are asked to pass this bill into law. In any event it would be good—for the sake of those who are listening if not for ourselves—if the Minister would give his understanding of the basis on which we are now being asked to support this legislation to settle the historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I thought that it would be only proper for me to respond to the questions put by the ACT member. I would like to refer the ACT member to the first and the third readings of the last claims settlement bill that came before this House—that is the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I recall the looks on the faces of the officials when I stood to offer the support of New Zealand First’s vote for that bill. In that first reading debate the ACT member may like to read particularly the comments made by my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly where he explained the reason for New Zealand First taking its stance in spite of the inclusion of those words à la the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. During the second reading of that same bill the ACT member in the House at the time questioned the stance taken by New Zealand First. So my colleague Dail Jones submitted an amendment that requested the deletion of those very words from the bill and—surprise surprise—the only two parties that objected to that amendment were ACT and National. So I think it is a bit rich for those members to then question the stance we are taking and in particular the policies that we are expounding with regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise again the issue of the Minister explaining the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and how they came to be in this bill. I hope that he does take a call shortly. I notice that there are other members in the Committee who would like to make that explanation on behalf of the Government but appear to be out of favour with their whip at present. They are just having a discussion and some people may hear that discussion going on in the background. I hope it is successful and that they are able to take a call. 
I make it clear that from the National Party’s point of view it does not really make a lot of difference what the Government might think this phrase means because we are very clear about what it means. We are clear about the reason why we are supporting this particular settlement bill. As we have said before with the  
Hansard 
 record being an important reference these days and part of the historical record—and Mr Prebble showed us tonight just how important that record actually is—I think it is worth making the statement for the record as to why we support this particular bill. 
Interestingly earlier this evening Mr Franks from the ACT party put most articulately a view of article 2 of the treaty that fits very very well with the National Party’s view of how the treaty should be considered when it comes to matters of settlement. It is simply a matter of saying that people had a right at a particular time that was not respected by the Government of the day and we now go into a process of redress because in hindsight we still respect the right. It really is I think about as simple as that. It is not about partnership or non-Maori having some obligation to Maori; it is about all New Zealanders from 6 February 1840 being able to expect that their interests in property and other treasures—if we want to use that term—would be respected by the Government. 
Rather than take the Committee’s time and repeat everything that Mr Franks said I simply refer the Committee to the speech made by him earlier this evening because I think it made most clear the position the National members take in considering why we support a bill what we mean and what we understand the bill to mean when the Government states that it is taking this action with regard to rights arising from the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I just wanted to listen to get the scope of what members were actually asking but I think I could refer them back to 1987 when the lands case in the Court of Appeal elaborated the principles of the treaty at that time as required by section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 as the member previously referred to. In that judgment the President of the Court of Appeal Sir Robin Cooke wrote of the principles of partnership active protection and redress. In 1989 the fourth Labour Government drawing on the principles that had been developed to date including past judgments from the courts published a set of five principles. That is why I am mystified that members refer to their lack of knowledge of these principles as though they had never been spoken of and had never been recorded in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well you keep changing them. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well on 30 April 2002 the then Attorney-General the Hon Margaret Wilson advised Parliament that these principles are what the Government considers to be relevant. I refer the member to  
Hansard 
 Volume 600 at pages 15813 to 15814 where the Attorney-General stated: “Those principles were published by the fourth Labour Government in 1989 to assist the Government when making decisions about matters related to the treaty. In summary they are as follows. First there is the principle of government: the Government has the right to govern and to make laws. Second there is the principle of self-management: iwi have the right to organise as iwi and under the law to control their resources as their own. Third there is the principle of equality: all New Zealanders are equal before the law. Fourth there is the principle of reasonable cooperation: both the Government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern. Fifth there is the principle of redress: the Government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.” I think that clearly articulates the position. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think that the Minister has shown us the opposite—how difficult the situation is—but first let me take up the challenge made earlier. The first statutory use of the words “principles of the Treaty” was in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975—I was not actually an MP then; I know that people think I have been here since the ark but I actually came here in November of 1975—but that phrase was only in the preamble. 
The preamble of that Act stated it would: “… provide for the observance and confirmation of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by establishing a Tribunal to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty and to determine whether certain matters are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty”. That was the first statement which was assented to on 10 October 1975. The Labour Government then suffered its biggest defeat in its history about a month later. 
 The second reference is in the State-Owned Enterprises Act—I think in section 9. There was some statutory comment but the comment by the Chief Justice was obiter; it was not part of the judgment. There has never been a judgment by our courts that has made the statements that the Chief Justice made in passing. The comment was not agreed to by the other judges and interestingly enough it is not agreed to by the Government. Chief Justice Cooke said that the treaty was a partnership whereas if we listened to what the Minister said we heard him give us five principles but they did not include “partnership” in them. So we have an interesting situation whereby the Minister has said we are following what judges say but he has also said: “Here are five principles.” 
I ask the Committee then where those five principles actually appear in the treaty. They do not. I tell the Minister that obviously there are principles in the treaty—[ 
Interruption 
] I would prefer it if the members did not conduct a conversation in the Chamber. They may not be interested in this matter but some of us are. 
There are three clauses in the treaty. In my view the principle in clause 1 is that it establishes sovereignty by the Crown. It is not that there are two states two Parliaments. It actually establishes sovereignty of the Crown. Sovereignty is ceded to Queen Victoria. 
The ACT party really likes clause 2 because it guarantees to Maori iwi and hapu their property rights and that is I believe the principle that this bill is actually trying to redress. The third clause granted Maori all the rights of British citizenship which one has to remember in 1840 were very considerable rights. They mean the right of equality before the law. 
Those are three simple principles. If the Minister were to say that those principles are what he supports—that he supports sovereignty property rights and equality before the law—then the ACT party would not have any difficulty in going along with that. 
But that is not what he has given us there. That statement made by Ministers has no legal authority at all bears little relationship to the Treaty of Waitangi and is the sort of waffly statement one would expect from a Labour Government. Where on earth does the treaty state “feasibility of cooperation” or something? Where does “self-management” appear in the treaty? Those statements are not there. 
Those matters there might be very worthy matters—it would be nice if the Labour Government did believe in self-management; I did not know that it did as I have never seen any sign of it; I thought it made a busy-body State—but they show the problem in successive Governments putting up the phrase “principles of the treaty” without being prepared to state in legislation what they actually are. 
I have to say to the New Zealand First Party that I have seen Mr Peters’ attempt but frankly I do not like it. I think— 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Settlement of historical claims and miscellaneous matters 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the part that deals with the settlement of the historic claims. Interestingly one of the opening statements suggests that this settlement is effected under the deed of settlement. Basically it is saying that no other enactment in Parliament can get in the road of this settlement. 
However I refer the Committee to the contributions made earlier by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and Mr Pita Paraone. They talked about the issue of whangai—adoption—and in particular the issue of adoption outside the strict blood lines of Nga Rauru Kitahi. This issue came up before the select committee and we did have discussions with the Minister. The Minister said tonight that perhaps it was something that would be dealt with at another time and that we needed to think of another way of doing this. 
It seems rather strange to me that there can be a settlement of a grievance held by a group of people who have a very clear blood connection to another group of people who were wronged some time in the past and that that settlement can then be shared by someone who is adopted into the family. I would like the Minister to explain why the Government feels that this will not be a problem in the future. It is all very well to say in this part of the bill that this is where it all becomes full and final if in fact the gate has been left open and there is a feeling inside the settling group that something was imposed upon them. After all that is why we are here in the first place. 
I also want to enter in the  
Hansard 
 record the other side of that story which is that quite clearly Nga Rauru Kitahi have accepted this part of the settlement. They have said: “OK fair enough. The Government of the day insists on this. We want our settlement and so this is what we are prepared to run with.” If that is the case then the Minister will surely be able to assure the House of that particular fact. There is no point in creating new grievance inside a settlement bill. 
Earlier this evening the Hon Richard Prebble said that some years out from now the actual cash amount being settled would seem quite small. What is most important here is the process that has gone on. Unlike other settlements there has supposedly been a much better process here to reach this point. We are supposed to be certain that Nga Rauru Kitahi are happy comfortable and completely accepting of the full and final nature of the settlement. 
 So it is not unreasonable for the Committee to point to this concern and it would be reasonable of the Minister to reassure us about it. Because it does seem odd that Part 2 which refers to the meaning of Nga Rauru Kitahi and what it is to be part of that group and Part 3 which refers to the settlement of historical claims and miscellaneous matters and makes it clear that no other Act could get in the road of this settlement could cause quite a degree of angst among the claimant group. 
I know about this from sitting at the select committee table and hearing Maori members with similar connections to their own iwi groups express quite vocally their concerns about the issue. It is not in any way nitpicking; it is very very important. The Minister owes the Committee an explanation at this point because it is undeniable that once this bill is passed some rights will be lost. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party and as members know we are not members of the Maori Affairs Committee. I listened with a great deal of interest to the points made by Mr Brownlee but I have to say that at the end of it I was not a great deal wiser. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We haven’t had the questions answered yet. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I know but I am asking the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui because it appears to me there is a question about adoption and what I am not sure about is whether the consensus is that people who have been adopted are included in the claimant group. 
Pita Paraone 
: They are. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I hear someone saying they are. Well I am not sure they are and I repeat I was not on the committee but we have here and have already passed it a definition of who is in and one has to be a descendant. So people who are adopted are not included. That would be my view. Then we might say they are included because there is the Adoption Act but clause 15(3) in Part 3 states: “Despite any other enactment or rule of law” which would make it seem to me that maybe the Adoption Act is one of those laws covered by that clause. I would like to know from the Minister—and it is not just important to me in voting but is fairly important to people who have been adopted and other members—what the Government’s view is. Are adoptees included? 
I can think of other situations—the Matrimonial Property Act; a wonderful piece of legislation that I have run up against a couple of times!—that can result in property settlements. Is that an enactment that has been ignored in terms of the words “despite any other enactment”? Is that one ignored? It may not be well known that as a result of the matrimonial property legislation and descent and the like some people who own Maori land in this country do not have a drop of Maori blood in them. That is a fact; there are such people. Does this bill when we say people have to be descended mean we are overriding that legislation? If we are that seems to me to be contrary to various principles that the House has adopted in the Adoption Act and that we have adopted in the matrimonial property legislation. 
No doubt the Minister will get some advice from his officials but I think that it is important at the Committee stage especially as Mr Brownlee says the matter was discussed extensively at the select committee that the rest of the members who were not on the committee can share that knowledge. I would like to know whether adoptees are in or out and then I would like to know what the principle was in deciding that. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable question and I hope the Minister will answer it because it is not only important to me but obviously important to people who have been adopted and important to their families and all of the claimants. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I feel bound to stand up and take a call simply because it looks like the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui is not going to respond to the question that the Hon Richard Prebble quite rightly put. On the face of it this bill does not include adopted children or whangai whereas during the select committee process the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements were pretty adamant that they are included. So there is a real issue raised here. 
It may be that my colleague Gerry Brownlee and I have raised the issue incorrectly. Maybe the Hon Richard Prebble’s view is right because it seems that adopted children are not included in the provisions in the bill. The issue arose in the Maori Affairs Committee because for the iwi Nga Rauru Kitahi claimants I understand this was a key negotiation issue. They requested that presumably their settlement bill override the Adoption Act. I am not sure whether that is correct; maybe the Office of Treaty Settlement officials can give some advice to the Minister on it. 
So at the iwi’s request it became a live issue. They seemed to agree with the point that Gerry Brownlee and I have raised. It seems absolutely illogical to us that on the one hand the bill sets out those who benefit on the basis of blood lines and descent but that on the other hand it also provides that someone who has no blood connection or whakapapa that links to Nga Rauru Kitahi either through any one of the hapu or through the eponymous ancestor can still participate. 
So this is a live issue I say to the Minister. We thought we had some clarity on it in the select committee but on the basis of the matters raised by the Hon Richard Prebble I myself am confused. I think it is very important that someone clarify the situation of adopted children because the issue will arise again. If adopted children are not specifically included in the settlement Act some tribes will exclude them in the future anyway despite the Adoption Act. Given the words “despite any other enactment” the tribe would be quite within its rights to do so. The issue will come up again. It seemed clear in the select committee but it is not clear now. 
I ask the Minister to take a call and give us some clarity on the matter otherwise we will be back in the House dealing with future settlement bills—although we may not be because it is an issue we will get some clarity on when we are in Government in a few weeks’ time. The issue of who is to benefit is complex and serious. As my colleague Gerry Brownlee says it may become the subject of further claims down the line so it is very important that we get some clarification now as to whether adoptees are included. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call in response to one concern that I am aware of in relation to this part of the bill and that is the rights or recognition of whangai or legally adopted children. There was considerable discussion amongst the members of the Maori Affairs Committee about the inclusion of legally adopted children. To some degree the representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi were also concerned but after a discussion at the select committee we were able to point out to the representatives that the inclusion of whangai or legally adopted children in this bill was in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955 in accordance with previous settlement Acts and in accordance with the rights of adopted children under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. So there is a long stream of consistency in reference to whangai or legally adopted children. 
The other thing we discussed with the representatives was the actual nature of their concern. Their concern surrounded the adoption of non-Maori children by and large but if we concentrate the issue on non-Maori children then basically we also catch Maori children in the net because in many cases a lot of the adopted children are Maori and non-Maori. We asked the representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi what the process would be in the case of Maori children who have been adopted into certain families to determine whether they had the whakapapa. We asked whether they would be required to submit their whakapapa to the trustees to receive benefits or whether there was some other way of determining whether they were of blood line. To be quite honest they were not able to answer that question because there is no way of making that declaration. Many families adopt children and by and large they keep that information to themselves. They do not wish to have to account for their decision to adopt children. So it became a much more difficult issue to resolve in terms of their position and it was understandable that the decision was made in relation to consistency with the Adoption Act. I understand from the representatives and from the discussions I have had with them since the select committee process in Wanganui that they have accepted that situation. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was all very interesting but it is news to me. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: You weren’t there. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I sat on the Maori Affairs Committee and I was there for the various processes related to the signing off of this bill and that explanation has never been offered before. So I am a little intrigued to learn that Nga Rauru Kitahi has itself accepted this situation. Notwithstanding that I notice that clause 17 lists specific enactments that are not to affect the land in question: the Treaty of Waitangi Act the State-Owned Enterprises Act the Education Act 1989 the Crown Forest Assets Act and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act. 
I do not see the Property (Relationships) Act listed in that clause and Mr Prebble quite rightly brought that Act into the argument. So I ask the Minister a simple question. If someone receives property as a result of this settlement and it is a decision of the governing entity to put some names on the title of that property which is not uncommon and if one of the people who are named marries someone or enters into a common law arrangement with someone and that breaks down after 2 years what will happen? The Government’s decree is that assets are split down the middle but if the only asset is that person’s name on the particular title what will happen? Will a court have the authority to add another name to that title to reflect the share that the other party would then under our law in this country be entitled to? 
Just to go back to the issue of legal adoption I would have thought that under the whangai system there was no problem because most of those arrangements would be made within the particular iwi structure—in fact probably within the hapu structure or even within the whanau. But in the case of someone who was legally adopted I find that a little bit hard to swallow. Let us say that the person I spoke of before who has his or her name on a title somewhere enters into a common law arrangement with someone who has three or four children—or two or one; however many it is—and decides to legally adopt them and then after the prescribed period of 2 years it all turns to custard as people say. What is the status of those children then? Are they then suddenly caught in the loop? They may have absolutely no idea of what Nga Rauru Kitahi is all about. They may never have lived in the tribal district and they may not ever intend to live in that district. Is the Minister honestly telling us that the governing entity of that particular iwi group will say that there is no problem and that because those children’s names are on its roll they are beneficiaries of whatever is produced as a result of the settlement assets being worked in a good economic fashion and that it wishes them good luck? 
Part of the problem we have in all these settlements is the claim that is repeatedly made by iwi that their lands were dispersed and taken away from them. I worry quite a bit that with the acceptance of the 1955 Family Protection Act as it is applied here with the overlay of the Property (Relationships) Act that we have now and with the great change in circumstances in New Zealand families these days we will see quite a diminution of any particular ownership interest in lands and other assets. If the Minister wants to put it on the record that I am wrong by saying that there is no problem with regard to this issue then I invite him to do so. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat Gerry Brownlee is not wrong; he is just confused. The issue with regard to whangai is very important to Maori. When Ben Couch initially tabled the first Maori Land Bill—which was a rewrite—in the House in 1978 a long process followed ending in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Maori people with great anxiety a huge amount of consultation and a great degree of angst thought very carefully about the process of whangai. Until 1955 whangai as a concept— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the honourable member but I do so because I actually want to hear him and I find that very difficult when Ministers come over here and speak in the aisle. I literally cannot hear Mr Tamihere because Mr Barker is holding his conversation so loudly. I wonder whether he would mind holding his conversation in the corridor so that I can hear the contribution being made by the honourable member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution and I ask members to take that into consideration. Generally conversations are not to be held in the Chamber unless it is absolutely necessary. I suggest that members take them outside if that is not the case. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Until 1955 customary arrangements for both marriage and adoption were determined as a matter of fact before the Maori Land Court. So until 1955 through the Maori Land Court adoption was allowed in terms of Maori cultural determinations by way of the concept of whangai—to feed and to look after the child. At that time the applicable whakapapa was that of the parents who had embraced the child and that child then took a beneficial interest in Maori freehold land interests. After 1955 Maori land law was amended to the extent that an adoption order was required. So a couple of dates have to be understood to get the status correct here. Between 1955 and 1993 unless one had an adoption order through the Department of Social Welfare clearly determining the parentage a child could not participate other than by way of will in Maori freehold land interests. That is the first point of clarification. 
The second point is that after 1993 Maori up and down the country determined that they would accept whangai within the hapu-whanau groupings that looked after a child who was taken in. That again is a matter of fact to be determined in the Maori Land Court. So the right of a whangai is now available without adoption order on Maori freehold title land only. If the land is general land then the law of the Administration Act applies in the event of an intestate estate. If there is a will then the law of the will applies. With regard to the application of the Matrimonial Property Act and the Property (Relationships) Act it is clear that those two Acts have not applied to Maori freehold land interests. 
 That brings me to the third point because—[ 
Interruption 
] National’s spokesperson on Maori affairs should read the bill or ask his colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who is sitting on the back bench to fill him in on the reason. The House voted on these pieces of legislation. The member sat in the House on one of them. The reality is that there is an exclusion section with regard to both. Clarity is very important. The bill presently before us is not prescriptive with regard to Rauru Kitahi’s view of whangai. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is the member now telling us that the House has passed in recent times two very contentious pieces of legislation that will protect Maori assets but nobody else’s? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. It is a debatable issue and the member has the opportunity to take a call. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member was around when those pieces of legislation were being discussed in the House and the fact that he was not awake is not my problem. The reality is that in respect of the application of the law under the present settlement legislation in the event that the land assets are deemed to be Maori freehold land or a status declaration to that extent is sought in the Maori Land Court matrimonial property law will not be applicable. However the right of a whangai will be applicable under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. 
Undoubtedly the policy determined by Rauru Kitahi’s governance entity will be the right one so we should not be prescriptive in legislation such as this. The way in which the law presently operates in relation to this issue works well. However in the event that a group wants to be quite definitive about the way in which it treats adoption whangai and the like so be it—let them put it in an agreement to be concluded between the Minister on behalf of the Crown and the claimant group. But I would have thought that the matter was as clear as crystal. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 That was a worthwhile contribution probably from John Tamihere but I do not know that it gets us over the hump we appear to be facing purely from looking at the information before us—first of all at the settlement bill itself and secondly at the advice that the Maori Affairs Committee received which I have now been able to get my hands on. I am not certain that John Tamihere’s explanations clever as they sounded actually helped my colleague and me. 
We are looking at the bill as was obviously the Hon Richard Prebble and on the face of it the bill defines Nga Rauru Kitahi in terms of the underlying premise of who can benefit from the settlement as whakapapa—blood lines. There is no doubt about that. Clause 13 appears to set that out very clearly. As I mentioned earlier the rights of adopted children was an issue that according to the advice given to the select committee was raised by the claimants themselves in their submission. It was a key negotiation issue. They requested of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 2 years ago that the Adoption Act be overridden. That Minister declined that request. Some months later they again wrote to the Minister on the issue. The matter was discussed and on 1 July 2003 the Minister wrote to Nga Rauru Kitahi explaining that while she was sympathetic to their concerns she still considered it inappropriate to use settlement legislation to override the Adoption Act. On three separate occasions apparently the seriousness of this matter to the tribe was reiterated. 
The Office of Treaty Settlements requested the view of the Crown Law Office. Much as I would like the Hon Richard Prebble to help give some clarity here because of his long experience in the law I shall refer briefly to that advice. Part of the advice is that clause 13 defines Nga Rauru Kitahi and sets out that that means: “… the iwi or collective group composed of—(i) individuals descended from 1 or more Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi tupuna;”. The Crown Law Office makes the comment that in short the beneficiaries of the settlement are required to descend from Nga Rauru Kitahi tupuna. The advice further states that under the Adoption Act legally adopted children are to be treated as equivalent to birth children. Section 16(2)(a) of the Adoption Act provides that upon an adoption order being made the effect will be that adopted children are deemed to become the child of the adoptive parent and the adoptive parent shall be deemed to become the parent of the child as if that child had been born to the parent in wedlock—which is slotting that child in as if he or she were a blood relative of the parent. The adopted child shall be deemed to cease to be the child of his or her existing parent and be deemed to be the child of the new parent. In effect the advice from the Crown Law Office was that legally adopted children would under the bill as it stands fall within the word “descended”. 
So a very legitimate concern about the inclusion of adopted children having been raised on several occasions by the claimants by the settling tribe and it having been considered by the Minister the Office of Treaty Settlements and now the Crown Law Office whose opinion basically is that adopted children fall within the definition of “descendants” it seems to me to be clear that they are included. The Adoption Act is not overridden as the Hon Richard Prebble indicated. There is also an issue of the Human Rights Act. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I am obliged to the last two members. I am not a member of the Maori Affairs Committee but in reading the bill it does appear that the statements with regard to adoption are correct. The legal argument that both put up seems to me to be quite clear and correct too. That is what we have said the adoption should be—that the children should apply. However I think Mr Tamihere might be mistaken in his view that just because there are exemptions with regard to matrimonial property and Maori land that necessarily means that all property created under this bill is exempt. It appears to me to be that Mr Tamihere—and I might be misinterpreting what he told the Committee—appears to be under the impression that property rights created under this bill are not affected. Well I am not sure that that is so because more property rights are created than just Maori land. In fact quite considerable property rights are created here and it would seem to me that the Property (Relationships) Act may well apply. 
So I would be interested to know from the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui whether the officials have turned their minds to that because again as Mr Brownlee pointed out to the Committee we have to be very careful when we are passing bills of this sort that we do not in fact for the best possible reasons end up creating a further grievance and argument that is raised later. I would be interested to know whether these sorts of rights and property have been contested. No doubt they have been contested in some matrimonial property cases and for the sake of the claimants it would be useful if the Minister would let the Committee know whether they have been—even though there is as Mr Tamihere said within the Property (Relationships) Act and in the property settlement legislation some provisions in relation to Maori land. We are not dealing here just with Maori land are we? 
 In fact we are dealing with quite considerable assets including cash. So is that in or is that out? If one is a beneficiary and a shareholder in the cash—and it is $200 million or so—and parts from one’s spouse can he or she put in a claim against the person for his or her say one thirty-thousandth of that share? If they cannot under what principle can they not because there does not appear to me to be any provision here saying they cannot. If the matrimonial court is capable of making such a settlement what will the effect of that be upon the claimants and again given the rate of marriage break-up in New Zealand and the fact that this settlement is supposed to last forever what will its effect be in say 100 years’ time? People might think that that is a ridiculous statement but people will look at this in 100 years’ time and say that 100 years ago it should have been obvious with the rate of matrimonial settlements and the like that this settlement would be completely diluted by the result of some other statute. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: By the result of marriage break-ups. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes over 100 years. This is supposed to be a settlement forever is it not? Well if it is is that an aspect that has been taken into account? If it has I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks its impact would be and if it has not the House ought to record that this was a matter that the Government did not turn its attention to and no doubt in 30 or 40 years’ time it will be the basis of yet another claim. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Cultural redress 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the part that is arguably the part we should pay the greatest attention to. It deals with various authorities and protocols that are to exist between Crown agencies and Nga Rauru Kitahi from this point. 
It also lists a number of redress properties that are to pass to this group as part of the settlement. I note that one of them is the Waiinu Beach site. The site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987 and the fee simple estate in the Waiinu Beach site is vested in the governance entity for Nga Rauru Kitahi claim settlement. Given that the word “beach” is specifically used here and given that throughout the time we were looking at the seabed and foreshore legislation we were told that the beach is according to the dictionary the part of the coastline that gets wet sometimes due to tidal activities I would like to know whether the Government is in fact proposing to give away the fee simple title to part of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. National members notice and would recognise that there is nothing at all in the Foreshore and Seabed Act that prevents the Government from doing exactly that. We are aware that the Government is engaged in significant negotiations around other parts of the country with a proposal to see this sort of arrangement entered into. I understand that the particular site is not particularly large but that is somewhat irrelevant if in fact it is a piece of coastline that has a fee simple title attached to it and if that title is transferred as part of a treaty settlement. 
This part of the bill also deals with the statutory acknowledgments for the purposes of achieving the redress. There is a clause clause 43 that requires the Environment Court to have regard to statutory acknowledgments. Clause 43(1) states: “From the effective date the Environment Court must have regard to a statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in determining under section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 whether the governance entity is a person having an interest in the proceedings greater than the public generally in respect of an application for a resource consent for activities within adjacent to or impacting directly on the statutory area.” It would be interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what that means. Clause 43(2) specifically does not limit the obligations of the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act. That is possibly—and this was discussed at the select committee as well—quite contradictory and I think it is necessary for the Minister to place on the  
Hansard 
 record exactly what the Government thinks it means so that the rest of us can be enlightened as to the particular benefit that accrues to the settling party as a result of that part. 
So there are two questions for the Minister. What is the Waiinu Beach site all about? Does it mean that the Government is transferring a fee simple interest in part of the coastline of this country to this group? And secondly does clause 43 confer extra duties on the Environment Court in terms of the particular rohe of this iwi when it comes to hearing matters that are part of resource applications? 
Further to that what is the situation when an application is made that does not find its way to the Environment Court? That is I think the nub of the issue that National members have been raising for some time—that many of these statutory acknowledgments etc. give the various Maori groupings quite a say in the nature of resource consents or in fact the nature of how any district might eventually develop regardless of the size of the grouping’s particular interest in that area. So we want to know two things: what are the limits on the court and what if an application does not get to a court? What are the obligations then on the local authorities that have the responsibility to issue consents—and it is a responsibility on them to issue consents—when applications are made? 
I notice also that quite a considerable duty is put upon the relevant consent authorities to distribute to Nga Rauru Kitahi resource consent applications. I find that just a little bit strange. Does it mean that if someone makes a proposal for some development inside this rohe area that person not only has to get a consent from the local authority—and it does not specify which local authority; it could be the regional authority or the district authority—but also has to gain consent from the iwi themselves? This clause clause 46 is quite a strongly worded clause. I see from subclause (3)(a) that the governance entity is allowed to “waive its rights to be notified under this section;” but the provision also allows it to “(b) state the scope of that waiver and the period it applies for.” In other words it might determine that particular applications under a particular value do not have to go to it for the period of the next 3 years or until it is reviewed or whatever. But it would seem that there is an opportunity for it to determine when it will have quite a large say on any particular project. 
 Also clause 46(5) states: “This section does not affect the obligation of a consent authority to—(a) notify an application in accordance with sections 93 and 94C of the Resource Management Act 1991: (b) form an opinion as to whether the governance entity is a person that is likely to be adversely affected under those sections.” Of course those administering the Resource Management Act must consider the adverse effects on the grouping because that is in the law at the moment but that tends to make me think that the previous four subclauses in clause 46 create an additional opportunity for the governance entity—an opportunity that other New Zealanders simply do not have. So we ask the Minister to make that explanation as well. That is three things. 
There is also the curious clause 50 “Termination of deed of recognition”. What does that mean? That is a simple question that we would like the Minister to answer. If some recognition relating to some particular deed is part of a settlement why would that recognition terminate? Then there is the issue of clause 51 “Statutory acknowledgements in relation to rivers”. That clause does not seem to be at all clear. I notice that the clause states that artificial watercourses are not part of that particular acknowledgment. I want the Minister to tell us what work has been done to work out what is artificial and what is not. Literally hundreds of small rivers creeks and streams around this country have been moved because it was convenient to move them. It is interesting to see when we fly over this country how many rivers or little streams loop around themselves and quite clearly have been diverted either for irrigation purposes some years ago or for the purpose of gaining a better section of land that is unbroken by that watercourse. It would seem that although a watercourse may be somewhat artificial in direction it is not at all artificial in so much as water flows along it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clauses 85 and 86. I think this is a very serious matter. If the Government of the day were to pass legislation stating that Jesus Christ was the son of God we would have a riot. Members would say that we could not pass religious texts—much as any of us believe them—into the law of the land. Yet the Minister must acknowledge that that is exactly what this Government is proposing to do. For anyone who is a Christian to vote for this section of the bill is a heresy. Schedule 12 states in what will be a law of the land: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard down through the generations …”. Then there are further matters in what can only be described as a religious text. In our politically correct way I will not make a derogatory remark about those religious beliefs. All I am saying is that this is supposed to be a secular State. The Government of New Zealand does not endorse any religion yet in this bill it does. 
It just shows how politically correct we have become. If a provision in this bill stated for example that Mohammed was the prophet and if we were going to pass that into law there would be a riot. Yet here we are passing a belief that I suspect that very few Maori actually believe. But it is politically correct to put the provision in. 
As Mr Copeland pointed out to me—and Mr Murray Smith of United Future has an amendment to remove the provision—this will be the law of the land. How is a judge supposed to be able to make a ruling on it? Judges are trained in the law not in theology. What is the point of putting a provision like that in the law? It is bad lawmaking and it is contrary to the secular nature of the New Zealand State. It is an outrage that the Government has put the provision in. If the Government wants to know why it will be defeated this year I say that it is because of this sort of politically correct nonsense. It is a great shame that our media are so politically correct that they will not report the fact that the New Zealand Parliament is passing religious views and stating them in the law. That is all we are being asked to do. 
I do not claim to be a particularly good Anglican but I know enough to know that it is heresy to vote for a provision like that. No Catholic ought to vote for it and no Anglican should. Indeed no person who believes in a secular State and who believes that we should not force religious views on others should vote for that provision. What on earth was the Government doing? I will tell members what it was doing. It cares very little about people’s beliefs. Our civil servants would have said that perhaps we could save $10 million of taxpayers’ money if we were prepared to pass a piece of mumbo-jumbo—which is what the civil servants would think of it—that included that provision and that that would make everyone feel happy. 
Well this person is not happy. This is the sort of statement I do not accept. Even as a Christian if one were to start putting Christian text on to the statute book I would oppose it. It is not the Government’s job to start saying what is right or wrong in religion. That is a matter for individuals to form their own opinion on. There is no role for that sort of thing on the statute book. It is wrong. It is wrong in law it is wrong constitutionally and I suspect that every MP thinks it is theologically wrong. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Richard Prebble is wrong. He is completely and utterly wrong in everything he just said. Schedule 12 sets out a statement of Nga Rauru Kitahi values in relation to a toopuni site. It describes what Nga Rauru Kitahi believes is its position in relation to that particular toopuni. It is quite right that settlement legislation to implement a deed of settlement which is about the relationships and the reasons why the settlement is made contains a statement from the iwi concerned as to its beliefs about those issues. That is not to say that the Government agrees with the iwi’s statement or that suddenly we all have to believe it. Mr Prebble is absolutely false and wrong in his statements about schedule 12. It simply enables the iwi for which this bill was specifically designed to have its say. 
Much of the legislation we produce in these settlement bills is directed and determined by the Office of Treaty Settlements via Government policy. Very little of it except for specific names and details about places is determined by iwi themselves. Often the history set out in the preamble of a bill is a description written by Government officials and later agreed to by iwi. So very little content in this bill was actually written by the iwi and the iwi alone. The purpose of this bill is to provide some form of restitution for the wrongs committed against the iwi in the past. Those wrongs relate to more than just land and resources. They also relate to misinterpretation of and disinformation about the iwi’s own history. The failure that we have had in this society over time is not to enable Maori to have the chance to say what their history is themselves instead of it being re-interpreted through the English language or through the perspectives of colonial history and the Pakeha system that we have in place now. That is all that schedule 12 does. It enables Maori to say for themselves what their own history is instead of having it continually recycled through a Pakeha perspective. 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with including this measure in legislation. In fact it shows an incredible maturity on the part of the Government at least—I am saying something nice about Government members for a change—to enable those statements to be made without being fettered or without being filtered through a Pakeha lens. There has been a long history of structural racism in this country which continues today. This is a small step towards recognising that the indigenous people of this country—the mana whenua—have the right to hold and to state their beliefs and to present their history in the way that they see fit without having it be re-interpreted by Pakeha all the time. 
I am very pleased that the bill at least provides some opportunity for Nga Rauru Kitahi to speak for itself and to have its own history put in the bill. That is not mumbo-jumbo. Richard Prebble calls it mumbo-jumbo which is a most derogatory and pejorative description of the history of those people as they have determined it themselves. He cannot accept that their history is legitimate and that the way that they describe it and the purpose for which they describe it are legitimate. That history is absolutely legitimate and I believe that it must be accepted by the House. It is absolutely essential that Nga Rauru Kitahi be given the opportunity to state its history in its own legislation for the purpose of providing it with restitution. The arguments against schedule 12 go to the heart of what structural racism in this nation really is. There is a failure to see structural racism when it occurs and a failure to understand that it is the re-interpretation of the history the reality and the tikanga of the indigenous peoples in this country. It is their right to have their history described in legislation. At least that is one of the few times when it belongs solely and entirely to them. 
The Greens are very happy that schedule 12 is here in the bill. We will definitely continue to support those kinds of statements being made in this form of legislation. It is such a small step yet there is a continual denigration of it. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call in this part of the debate. Firstly I want to make a comment about clause 46. I must say—and it is not very often that I agree with him—that I have to support the concern of the National member particularly in terms of subclause (1). Only some New Zealanders will not have the opportunity in terms of the non-notifiable applications. In this clause the claimant group will receive notification of all applications whereas the only notification of applications that the general public will not receive are those that are deemed to be non-notifiable. With regard to clause 46(3) I cannot see why they would want to waive their rights under this clause and I would be very interested to know under just what circumstances they would want to do so. 
I want to make a specific comment with regard to clauses 85 and 86. I reluctantly agree with the comments made by the ACT member because he said that the House is not denying the right of the claimant group to its beliefs. But we say that the House has no right to legislate for those beliefs. Secondly their exclusion would not affect the settlement in terms of the quality or the amount. However one may be suspicious that the negotiators on behalf of the Crown may have included this so as to minimise the amount of settlement. I suggest that that is probably a factor. 
The comments made by the Green member have contributed to a thought that I have always had in terms of my concern for the inclusion of this part. By including this and having the comments that are being made by this Committee—I must say that it has not been too derisive to this point—the fact is that if we continue to go in the direction that the Green member has started to take the debate then I will feel some embarrassment for the claimant group. I want to re-emphasise the point that the claimant group is entitled to its beliefs. It is not the responsibility of this Parliament to pass into legislation what the claimant group might believe. I suggest that before too long—and I am probably showing my age—we will believe that there really was a Janet and John. As a young person growing up and going to school I believed in Janet and John. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And Harry Potter? 
PITA PARAONE 
: No not Harry Potter. I am a bit older than that but my grandchildren think that Harry Potter actually exists. That is the point I am making—if we start legislating for that sort of thing future generations will start saying that they have to believe it. 
We are talking about getting an enduring settlement. Excluding this part will not make any difference to the endurance of the settlement. I wanted to stand to make the point that the claimants Nga Rauru Kitahi will still have their settlement even if this reference is not included. I signal that New Zealand First will be supporting the amendment that has been proposed by United Future. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I too would like to take a brief call concerning Murray Smith’s amendment to omit from schedule 12 the statement of the religious belief of the iwi. In doing so I would like to endorse entirely the comments made by the member Pita Paraone. I say to Metiria that she has completely—[ 
Interruption 
]—Metiria Turei has completely missed the point. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Copeland has completely failed not only to use my proper name but to pronounce it in a way that is recognisable except in the most extreme way. I ask you to tell him that if he is going to refer to me he should use my full name properly. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I was busy correcting that error when the member interrupted me. I have corrected the error. The member has completely missed the point that has been made by Pita Paraone. I would defend very very strongly any New Zealander’s right to freedom of religion. New Zealanders are free to believe anything they want to believe to pursue that to manifest that to practise that and by the way to leave it if they wish to at any point in time. Those freedoms are enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is not the issue at all. The issue is that we are setting a precedent in this bill for the inclusion of statements of religious belief in law. 
I will tell members why that is very dangerous. It is very dangerous because inevitably there will be people in this iwi who do not personally believe what is in that statement. The majority of the iwi may do. It may be their history. I do not dispute any of those facts at all. But individuals may want to make a quite different decision personally about their spiritual beliefs. If they do I can just imagine one of the elders saying: “But hang on what we believe is right.” When he is asked how he knows that he will say: “Because the Government of New Zealand has said it is right.” 
That is what we are actually doing with this provision; that is the precedent we are setting. I do not believe that that sort of statement has a place in a piece of law—because we are actually making law here. There is nothing wrong with incorporating it as an appendage to the actual settlement if the iwi want to do that or to put it as part of the papers with the settlement but in the view of United Future including myself it should not be included within the bill for that reason. It is a very unfortunate precedent. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I must say that I agree with the comments made by Pita Paraone—a member from New Zealand First—and by the Hon Richard Prebble. National along with New Zealand First submitted a minority view that related totally to this part under discussion. The Green member is incorrect or impugns the rest of us with a view that is not correct in that she appears to make it look as if we do not respect the beliefs of Nga Rauru Kitahi. That is utterly untrue. We do respect them. They are entitled to their beliefs. They are entitled to their cultural spiritual and mythological beliefs. They are certainly entitled to those; we just do not think that Parliament should be legislating for those beliefs. 
The other thing is that those beliefs can be very well recognised in the deed of settlement and usually such beliefs are set out in the deed. The fact is all of us in this Parliament except the ACT party voted for the Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau legislation and the committee was able to effect a change by requesting the claimants to consider taking out of their settlement bill a schedule that in its way resembled the very one now before us. Their having agreed to that and that schedule having been taken out of the bill—largely because the matter sits in the deed of settlement anyway—their settlement is not at all compromised. In fact it has gone into law. It is now in law. 
That can be done with this situation as well. Indeed in the select committee process I put it to the claimants for all the reasons that have been stated here tonight and for the reason especially that it is as if they are asking the Government of the day to give legitimacy to their beliefs. Well either one believes one’s beliefs or one does not. If one does believe them having them stated in a piece of law does not necessarily make them any more true than what one thinks they are anyway. 
This is a real issue. National in Government will give it serious thought. I know that it has been done in previous settlements but that does not necessarily make it the most desirable thing we have ever done in this Parliament particularly when it is clear that no parliamentarian in this place wishes to show any disrespect to any claimants’ or tribes’ beliefs. But a legitimate concern has been raised that this Parliament ought not be legislating for the kind of statement we see in schedule 12 to be passed in law. 
Sadly although I put to the claimants the issue of changing it or taking it out they did not agree. That is their right I guess but I think it was also the responsibility of the Minister in charge to try to encourage them to have it removed from the bill. That would have had no effect at all on the settlement which with our support will eventually be passed into law. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I note that the Minister has not yet taken a call to answer the questions that were put to him earlier not only by me but also by Mr Pita Paraone. I also want to make some comments about the two clauses that refer to schedule 12. We raised these issues at the Maori Affairs Committee—they are the subject of a minority report attached to this bill—and we raised them again during the second reading debate. So there would be some expectation that the Government by now might have a clear explanation of why this particular schedule exists. 
I have looked at other settlement legislation and I can tell the Committee that none is as clear and explicit as this bill. It makes the extraordinary claim that those who are of Nga Rauru descent and presumably all of those who might be adopted by those of Nga Rauru descent are of both divine and human parentage and therefore I would say by my understanding are making a claim to be demigods. The question for the Minister is: if this is to be in the law should a judge in a court ignore it? 
Metiria Turei 
: No. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well the member for the Green Party says that no the judge could not. I would ask the member to explain what a judge is to do if someone goes along to a court somewhere and says: “My mother is that bit of land and the law says so.” 
Metiria Turei 
: It’s no different and the member knows that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No no the member is not right. It is actually not for the member to debate; it is for the Minister. So if someone says: “I don’t want that bridge going there or that road going over there or that sports ground or that housing subdivision going over there because that land is my mother.” the law says that that is to be respected and that that is fact. It is that sort of utter nonsense that New Zealanders are thoroughly sick of. I cannot stop anyone believing anything they want to believe. I have no right to. And no one can stop me believing what I want. No one can take away someone’s identity and no one can give it to them. So Mr Paraone is quite right. That should not add or detract from the settlement as far as the claimants are concerned but I think it detracts from the settlement as far as we are concerned because it makes us look foolish. I cannot understand why the Government is so keen to pass it. I have to say that if I stood up before an audience anywhere in this country and read out that particular schedule and told people that the Government had just passed it into law they would not believe me. Well actually they would. If I said it was a Labour Government that did it then yes they would believe me. 
That simple question is something that I asked before and that the Minister should answer. I asked whether a judge should ignore this piece of law because like any other piece of law it will have a consequence somewhere. I think it is absolutely amazing that we should be saying to a group that as part of their treaty settlement the courts will afford them the status of demigods. The courts will say that the law of New Zealand recognises the relationship between that individual and the physical geographic assets of the part of New Zealand described in this bill. That is extraordinary! [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Cosgrove over there might think that there is no problem with it but I ask him to read schedule 12. He probably has not and I have to tell him that on the street corners of the Waimakariri electorate this particular clause would cause outrage. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call to respond to a number of issues raised by in particular Mr Brownlee. I thank the Green member for her contribution on the issues relating to clause 85 with regard to Nga Rauru Kitahi values. At the same time I want to respond to the United Future member Gordon Copeland who also expressed some views about that clause. At no time have Nga Rauru Kitahi said that this is the basis of their religious beliefs. This is a statement about Nga Rauru Kitahi values in terms of their culture and spirituality in relation to their land. The Government acknowledges that they have made this statement and that is the only reason why the statement is included in this legislation. If it was a reference to their religious beliefs and given that many of the Nga Rauru Kitahi beneficiaries are of the same religious denomination as I am I would indeed have some problems with it. But that is not the case. 
In relation to the concerns expressed by Gerry Brownlee about clause 43(1) on the Environment Court the legislation places no extra duties on the Environment Court. The statutory acknowledgment provides for Nga Rauru Kitahi to have input into existing Resource Management Act processes in relation to applications to consent authorities Environment Court applications and Historic Places Trust applications. It does not give special weighting to Nga Rauru Kitahi views in relation to the Resource Management Act processes.  
Mr Brownlee referred also to the area of Waiinu Beach included as part of the cultural redress. That area of beach is located about 1 kilometre inland and at no time does it get wet unless it rains. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s it called a beach for? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: It is on Beach Road. It is not unusual to give an inland area a name that gives the impression that it is situated on the coast. I can tell the member— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s a real estate rort. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: It may well be but it is 1 kilometre inland; it does not adjoin the coast. 
I believe that the member had a problem with clause 50 too in relation to the termination of the deed of recognition under cultural redress. That clause basically acknowledges that at some time in the future the deed of recognition may terminate if the land is no longer managed by the Crown. In other words the Crown may decide to sell it off in the future.  
I have covered many of the issues that have been raised during the debate on Part 4. Most of the debate surrounds the cultural and spiritual values of Nga Rauru Kitahi. I am of the view that the Committee has no reason to be concerned about that although I do acknowledge the concerns of particular groups in relation to religion. I tell Mr Brownlee that I have no idea how a judge would rule on a matter relating to clauses 85 and 86 and I do not know of any court decision in which a judge has made a determination about who is God and who is not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He’s never had to. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Absolutely and there is no reason why a court would have to in the future. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s in the law now. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: That is my point. It would not have to do so in the future. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 The Minister is mistaken. Let me explain how he is mistaken. Clause 91—to take one example—concerning the New Zealand Conservation Authority and relevant conservation boards states that they must observe this provision. And what do they have to observe? They have to observe schedule 12. So when they are making orders with regard to land they have to see whether it fits in with this “gods sky lands and seas”—that is what it says. The Minister said that at no point would a judge have to rule on that matter. Well actually a judge could easily have to rule on it because if a conservation board decided to make an order with regard to a piece of land that is described in this bill and if a member of the iwi believed that the order was not in line with his or her religious beliefs the judge would then have to look at this provision and would somehow or other have to decide whether a practical conservation order like putting in a fence is in line with this sort of statement: “the celestial realm the cosmic emanations of the divine beginning the world and its creation and the evolution of the earth and its people”. 
I have been on the Maori Affairs Committee and I remember when one of the High Court judges appeared to give evidence as High Court judges did. It was Justice Baragwanath someone who is very sympathetic to things Maori. He asked how on earth he was expected as a judge to be able to give a judgment on those sorts of phrases. He was referring to a case he had heard down in Dunedin where apparently an early Maori god—I suppose we would say—had pissed into the ocean. He said that an iwi group came to court and said that as a result of that the dredging being proposed by the harbour board was a religious insult. The judge asked the committee as the Government had put into statute the fact that he was to take note of Maori religious values how he was supposed to make that judgment. He said he was trained in the law not theology. That is what the High Court judge said. 
As I have just pointed out to the Minister in the chair Mark Burton I can see a provision and I can see easily how this Parliament is asking a judge to make a judgment of that sort—which the Green MP could not make. She would not know how to make it yet she is telling us that we should include it in the bill even though the Green Party tramples on other people’s religious beliefs. If this provision was a Christian provision the Green Party would be the first party to jump up and down and oppose it absolutely. The godless Labour Government would be absolutely opposed to any Christian views being put into this bill. It has been quite happy to trample over Christian views in the last 6 years yet it introduces this provision. 
I challenge any Government member to give us a theological discussion on this provision for 5 minutes and then tell us how High Court judges are supposed to interpret it. They cannot do it. They know that it is PC nonsense. At the minimum they put it in just to reach a settlement instead of making a statement of principle for New Zealand that this Parliament does not impose religious beliefs on anyone and that it does respect other people’s religious beliefs—even though I suspect that there are very few members of this iwi who actually believe this. That is what I suspect. There might be some but I suspect that most do not because I notice that many of them belong to various Christian churches and this is not in line with those beliefs. So I ask the Minister why we are putting something into the law when we have heard from the judges themselves that they will interpret it if they are required to but they do not know how on earth they are supposed to do it. As a lawyer I say that the judges cannot do it. I have seen the Deputy Prime Minister attacking the courts and saying that the courts are creating law but no they are not. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is the third time I have called and it is the third time you have given the call to Opposition members. I thought that there was some arrangement in terms of alternate calls for the two sides of the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that—I was not aware that it was your third call. Your other call was after an earlier Labour call. I noticed that and Mr Prebble was sort of part-way through what he wanted to say. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I will try to allow that member to take a call so I will not take the full 5 minutes. I just remind the Committee that senior Government members—in fact the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General—have risen in this Chamber and been extremely critical of Her Majesty’s judges. How can we criticise the judges when we are passing a provision like this which no member of Parliament including the Green MP can interpret? I pointed out one example but there could be others of a conservation board being told by law that when it is making conservation decisions on drainage and the like it must take notice of schedule 12. I have read it. I was raised in the Church and have no idea what some of these provisions mean. How is one supposed to practically apply that if one is a layperson on a conservation board? I cannot see how he or she can do it and I cannot see how a judge can do it. Why are the Government and the Greens passing bad law? How on earth is that settling a grievance when no member of this Chamber can tell me how to apply in practical terms a clause like the one the conservation board is required to apply to a piece of land? I am not making it a question of religious beliefs; I am just saying that with regard to the law it is mumbo-jumbo and we should not be passing bad law. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 32 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.  
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.