Volume 630 Week 13 - Thursday 4 May 2006 
Volume 630 Week 13 - Thursday 4 May 2006 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
Thursday 4 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of the Communications Legislation Bill and the remaining stages of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure Bill the Coroners Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Education Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could indicate to us—noting the long list of work that the House appears to have before it—whether following the staggering success of the Telecom leak the Government is simply going to post the Budget on the Internet to save the House spending a lot of time considering it. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I deem it highly unlikely. 
Points of Order 
Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised the issue of a member of Parliament making a statement in respect of a document proposed to be tabled then not tabling the document. In this case Dr Nick Smith proposed to table a document in respect of a claim he had made about a prior speech of Mr Hawkins which he said he had a record of. I have had my office check with the staff of the Clerk’s Office to see whether such a document was tabled therefore and thereby verifying what Dr Smith had claimed in the House and to their knowledge no such document was tabled. That is typical of the kind of behaviour I was complaining about yesterday. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 My understanding was that members of the Government objected to my tabling the document but for the benefit of Mr Peters I will be very happy to provide the speech made by Mr George Hawkins claiming that National had no right to claim credit for the building reforms of the early 1990s because they were all Labour’s good work. I am happy to do that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker we were all here yesterday when you put the question and there was no demur from anyone in the House. Now he puts up that lousy excuse for his failing to present the evidence behind his allegation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need any more on this. Sometimes with so many members asking to table papers members do forget whether leave in fact was granted. We have heard Dr Smith’s explanation and the fact that he is happy to table them but I will remind members that there is actually no requirement to table a document. The leave of the House permits it but there is no actual requirement that it happen. If Dr Smith were to table it I am sure that would help the House. If Dr Smith would like to seek leave again then we would have the formalities clear. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the speech made by the Hon George Hawkins in which he said that National had no right to claim credit for the building reforms of the early 1990s and that they were all the work of the Labour Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Information Technology—Broadband Availability 
1. MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Communications 
: What is the Government doing to make faster cheaper broadband available to all New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 The Government has announced a package of measures to increase competition in broadband markets. The measures include unbundling the local loop full bitstream unbundling information disclosure and accounting separation to promote transparency encouraging investment in alternative infrastructure and a rural package that recognises the needs of the rural community. 
Maryan Street 
: What reports has the Minister seen on this package? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have received a large number of positive reports. A very recent one was from the OECD. It says: “The decision by the New Zealand Government to unbundle the local loop opens the door to more competition in the New Zealand broadband market.” Another quote from the president of InternetNZ says: “These decisions open the playing field for industry competitors to show their commitment to New Zealand consumers by investing in new infrastructure and services.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that this move which was announced hurriedly last night will now act as a guarantee so that this country can meet the targets he published in his digital strategy and those are that New Zealand is to be in the top half of the OECD by next year and in the top quartile of the OECD by 2010? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: For the second time today I suggest the Opposition spokesman read the Cabinet paper that is on the website. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: With the benefit of further research and the inclusion of advanced broadband services within the target it is now considered appropriate that we achieve the top half of the OECD by 2010 and the top quarter by 2015. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports of attempts to open up the telecommunications market and has he seen any reports as to what happened to those very worthy endeavours? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have a statement from 20 May 1998 made by the then Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer the Rt Hon Winston Peters where he calls for a review of the adequacy of competition in the telecommunications industry leading to the types of measures that were announced yesterday. That review was quashed by the then National Government. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree with the need to regulate the Internet service provider access price to the unbundled loop to prevent Telecom from overcharging competing internet service providers; if so how does the process of regulating access pricing work? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Access pricing principles will be legislated for and applied by the Telecommunications Commissioner to ensure there is a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the incumbent to earn a fair return and the access needs of entrants into the telecommunications market. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister seen a Treasury report of 1998 commissioned by yours truly that recommended an opening up of competition in telecommunications which then was promptly squashed by the National Government? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have not had the opportunity to review that document and I welcome the Minister tabling it but it does fit with one’s assessment of National’s lack of policy—it has not changed in 20 years. 
Keith Locke 
: How does the Minister plan to avoid the kind of excessive and drawn-out litigation processes that have accompanied the unbundling of some local loops overseas which have resulted in years of stalling manoeuvres? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This is a legislative process and not a judicially reviewable one. Legislative amendments already announced are designed to improve the speed and decisiveness of the regulatory process by the Commerce Commission. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister seen firstly the Treasury report recommending deregulation of all telecommunications in this country secondly a speech made by myself in late July of 1998 making that recommendation and thirdly the apoplectic reaction from Maurice Williamson when he found out his mates were going to be exposed to true competition? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The speech concerned is on my reading list and indeed I have heard that characterisation of the Hon Maurice Williamson before. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have heard a very interesting exchange between the Minister and the New Zealand First leader. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to take a minute of the House’s time to explain that perhaps this telecommunications package is just part of Winston’s dowry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order. Please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the Treasury recommendation after months of hard work on its part and also the speech that drove Maurice Williamson to a state of apoplexy because Telecom which had been funding the National Party was about to be exposed to competition. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table recent statements on New Zealand by the OECD and also the press release from May 1998 by the then Treasurer. 
Press release by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I seek leave to table page 29 of the Government’s National Digital Strategy in which it sets the top half of the OECD by next year and the top quarter by 2010 as its targets. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How did Telecom New Zealand Ltd obtain a copy of a commercially sensitive Cabinet document? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The State Services Commission is being asked to investigate the issue. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that as long ago as last week weblogs were speculating that the Government will “actually do something about it next week” that local loop unbundling is on the table that a structural separation of Telecom’s retail and wholesale operations is included and that local loop unbundling is apparently a firm decision but structural separation may be jettisoned all of which is a very accurate description of what was in the commercially sensitive Cabinet paper? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister I am aware of all sorts of speculation none of which I am responsible for. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Prime Minister heard reports that the Minister of Finance told a reporter that Telecom had known too much about the Government’s considerations on broadband for some time and the report that leaking could have been going on for months or years; and if she has heard those reports why does she believe that the Minister of Finance took no action when he knew leaking was a threat? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister not only am I aware of the reports but also I have a report in my hand. It is from Duncan Garner. There are no quote marks in it. It is Mr Duncan Garner talking about the issue. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does it say to the Prime Minister about the state of her Government when senior politicians or senior advisers and staff were willing to leak a highly confidential Cabinet document in a fashion that is unprecedented and does she realise the seriousness of this leak for confidence in her Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In response to the last matter confidence in this Government is staggeringly high. On the first issue an investigation is being prepared by the State Services Commission and I have no intention of prejudging what it will do. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Prime Minister’s inquiry include the matter of which Minister is ultimately responsible for this unprecedented leak and will she therefore require the resignation of that Minister after the style of Roger Douglas—in the only vaguely similar precedent—who offered his resignation when material that was less sensitive than this was leaked although not by him? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister I have no intention of prejudging this inquiry. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why can the Prime Minister not come to a conclusion and judge the reported comments of the Minister of Finance that he believed Telecom knew too much about the Government’s considerations on broadband given that the Minister of Finance had a chance to do something about that but he did nothing and that the result was an unprecedented leak of commercially sensitive information? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister as I pointed out before I have the report that the member is referring to in my hand on my desk here. It is Mr Garner talking; it is not the reported comments of the Minister of Finance. 
Hon Bill English 
: So he made it up? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am just saying that they are not the reported comments of the Minister of Finance. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Prime Minister is unwilling to prejudge the outcome of an inquiry why can she not give a judgment on the event that has actually occurred regardless of who leaked the paper which is that a highly commercially sensitive Cabinet document was leaked according to Telecom within an hour of the end of the Cabinet committee meeting and that that kind of leak is unprecedented in the New Zealand Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister I seldom do things to please Mr English. 
Hon Members 
: How does that address the issue? How does that address the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please just be silent for a minute. Would the Minister like to add to his answer. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister the member asked whether I would do something. I am saying that I will seldom do anything to please him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I must say that he did phrase his question in that way. It may not be a satisfactory answer but maybe the member would like to ask a more specific question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can I take it from the Prime Minister’s answer that she does not realise that this leak is unprecedented and that she does not realise that now no one can trust the decision-making process of this Government to protect information that is highly sensitive and ought to be kept secret? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: People do know that they can trust this Government to act in a very capable and competent way. An investigation is being arranged now. I ask the member not to prejudge things as he always does but to wait for the results of the inquiry. 
Avian Influenza—Tamiflu 
3.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What advice if any has he received on the effectiveness of Tamiflu in the advent of an outbreak of a bird flu pandemic? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: The Minister has received advice from the World Health Organization that Tamiflu is effective in reducing the duration and spread of seasonal influenza illnesses. But until a pandemic virus exists and is identified the efficacy of Tamiflu and its best use will remain unknown. The World Health Organization also advises countries to have reserves of antiviral medication in case of an influenza pandemic and the Government has acted on that advice and has sufficient doses of Tamiflu for 21 percent of the population. 
Tariana Turia 
: What information has the Minister received on the efficacy of the human antiviral medication Tamiflu given reports that it barely alleviates some of the symptoms of the common flu; and therefore what assurance can he give the nation that the same human antiviral medication will be effective in a bird flu pandemic? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Until there is a pandemic of that kind there will not be any definitive answer to that question. But we are taking the best advice we can get from the best clinicians and we have taken every precaution sufficient to and above World Health Organization standards and advice. 
Ann Hartley 
: How are New Zealand efforts to plan for an epidemic viewed in an international context? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am advised they are viewed very well. In fact just this week an article in the  
Harvard Business Review 
 stated that the New Zealand Government’s planning should be used as a guide for all Governments to follow. I quote: “Work to prepare for a pandemic is ongoing and includes not only the Government but also businesses and community groups around the country.” 
Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister concerned about the claims that a multinational corporate company Gilead Sciences which holds the rights to Tamiflu is well connected in the Bush administration and has a vested interest in promoting the spectre of a looming bird flu pandemic in order to increase its profits; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No I have no information on that and therefore I have no comment to make on it. 
State Services Commission—Merger of Department and Ministry 
4.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is she satisfied with the way in which the State Services Commission offered advice on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services - Ministry of Social Development merger? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes. 
Judith Collins 
: Why when the State Services Commission in December last year warned that a merger could “destabilise MSD” and create an “unmanageable chief executive position” and that the capability and operational problems that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services faced would not be fixed by a merger did she ignore the commission’s advice? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. The State Services Commissioner changed his mind over Christmas and came back to the Government and said he had changed his mind. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What are the outcomes that the Government expects to receive from the merger? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The paper prepared by my official recommended a much wider range of initiatives than just the merger. That complete package of measures will include services for the most vulnerable children in New Zealand. They include the merger of course but also the improvement of systems-wide management improved information management improved youth justice capability the addressing of the culture issues and greater policy coordination. 
Judith Collins 
: Which report from the State Services Commissioner is right: the one in December 2005 that says: “We do not think that the capability and operational problems faced by CYFS will necessarily be any more easily resolved in the context of a larger organisation. The potential is rather that the problems will be more difficult to address because of the inevitable loss of focus due to scope.” or the report from January 2006—1 month later—that says the merger is “the best option for improving the delivery of services for children youth and their families”—and why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The January report—the State Services Commissioner changed his mind. 
Judith Collins 
: What changed the State Services Commissioner’s mind from December to January? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: He had the period between December and January to give it greater consideration—which he did—and he changed his mind. 
Judith Collins 
: What was the extent of the consultation between the State Services Commission and Child Youth and Family Services and Ministry of Social Development senior staff before the State Services Commission report was signed off on 27 January this year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am unable to give the member the answer. I do not have it with me. I am certainly happy to find it out for the member. 
Judith Collins 
: What other explanation is there for the State Services Commission’s dramatic change in position other than the obvious one that her Government put political pressure on the State Services Commissioner over Christmas to change the advice? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is wrong. No pressure was put on the State Services Commissioner. That is made up by the member. The State Services Commissioner—as members of this House know—is an independent thinker and a man with a brain who is able to make his own decisions. 
Aged Residential Care Funding—District Health Boards 
5.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Will he allocate specific funding in addition to an inflation adjustment to district health boards for the aged residential care sector to compensate them for the impact of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation multi-employer collective agreement given that in his reply to written question number 1793 (2006) he noted the potential for the New Zealand Nurses Organisation multi-employer collective agreement to have an impact? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Public investment in aged residential care will increase significantly in this year’s Budget as has been agreed between the Government and New Zealand First. This funding boost will be in addition to future funding-track increases. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will the Minister be encouraging district health board representatives to meet residential aged-care sector representatives to discuss the impact of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation multi-employer collective agreement on wages and wage demands given that residential care operators have now been trying to arrange such a meeting for over a year? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government has a very proud record of delivering significant funding increases for the aged-care sector that will continue this year with the help and support of New Zealand First and I am certain that representatives of the district health boards encouraged by Government initiatives that are being worked through at the moment will be in a very good position to meet with the aged-care sector representatives. 
Darien Fenton 
: What is being done to support the role of nurses in New Zealand in addition to the New Zealand Nurses Organisation multi-employer collective agreement? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The historic half-billion-dollar pay increase for our public hospital nurses is just one part of the Government’s work to support the vital role that nurses play in the health sector. We have implemented prescribing rights for nurse practitioners expanded the number of nursing scholarships and reaffirmed the importance of primary-care nurses with the primary health-care strategy. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Would the Minister please explain why the paltry $12.5 million given to the aged-care sector in the 2005 Budget had so many tags on it that not only have a number of providers and home-care workers not yet received the money but some who have are still working for a net $5 per hour? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The member may well think that a $12.5 million increase for a sector is a minor matter but I can assure her that it is a whole lot more than could be delivered by the party that she represents which would have had tax cuts instead of increases in the health sector. 
Judy Turner 
: Will primary health organisations receive any additional funding so that the primary health nurses can enjoy the same wage gains that nurses working for district health boards currently receive? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Delivering fair pay for nurses employed in the public sector has been a top priority for the Government and we hope other sectors will follow our lead. But the member should remember that the Government has already committed to a 7-year $2.2 billion investment in the primary health sector. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What is the Minister prepared to do to ensure that district health boards pass on to the aged-care sector the promised increased funding? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Where public agencies at a local or national level have received funding from the Government for specific purposes the Government would always require those agencies to pass on those increases and Government agencies always work cooperatively with local and regional agencies to see that that occurs. 
Health Services—Waiting Lists 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many patients does he expect this financial year will be removed from waiting lists for a first specialist assessment and returned to their GP for ongoing care and how does this compare with the previous year? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health)  
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: In the time available I have been advised by 18 out of the 21 district health boards that about 10000 people so far this year have been returned to their general practitioner for ongoing care which the Ministry of Health advises me is broadly comparable with the number last year. Those 10000 people represent about 2.5 percent of the more than 400000 New Zealanders who have been seen by a specialist this year. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why have those patients been culled from the waiting list? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The district health board authorities and commissions have taken the view that they have a certain number of patients who are in the system whom they can see. There are others whom they have reviewed suggested or recommended be referred back to general practitioners for further assessment and taken steps to see they are referred back. Under the circumstances I do not think that is an unreasonable step for them to take. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports if any has the Minister received on increases in elective procedures under the Labour-led Government? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have seen two reports. One based on fact—something that clearly the National Party does not know much about—shows that the number of people who received elective surgery has gone up by 8 percent or 12.6 percent on a case-weighted basis since the change of Government. The other report I have seen is from the National Party and shows the numbers are going down not up but it does that by excluding all medical activity all acute surgical activity all case weighting and all out-patient surgical activity and by forgetting the year in which Labour was actually elected. 
Tariana Turia 
: Given the Minister’s response to yesterday’s question when he appeared to attribute responsibility for systemic bias to myself as one of two Associate Ministers to the Hon Annette King now that he is the Minister would he be prepared to take responsibility for the systemic bias that currently exists in the health system that denies Maori people access to it; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: All I can say to that question and answer is that if the member has evidence of that systemic bias and supplies it to me I will get comment back to her. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister advise us how many people have been culled from waiting lists at other district health boards when the publicly announced figures from the various district health boards I am about to list already total over 10000: 1800 from the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board 2000 from the Canterbury District Health Board 3000 from the Waikato District Health Board 1800 from the Counties Manukau District Health Board 1100 dumped from the MidCentral District Health Board and 400 from the Bay of Plenty District Health Board? That figure is already over 10000; how many people have been culled from the other 12 district health boards? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In the time available to provide an answer to this oral question I asked officials to contact all the district health boards to get that information. Three I understand did not reply but when I asked officials they said that the range is regularly somewhere between 10000 and 14000 and that about 10000 for the 18 out of 21 boards that replied is an accurate figure. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has a list of the district health boards with their numbers with him. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No I do not have it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will any of the 24000 people who have currently waited more than 6 months to see a specialist be culled from the waiting list in the next year? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Although the member is quoting the 24085 people who have been waiting for a first specialist assessment for longer than 6 months it is worth noting for the benefit of the House and the people of New Zealand that last year over 400000 people received a first specialist assessment. The number of people waiting for a specialist assessment for longer than 6 months which is what the member seems to be worried about has actually fallen by 42 percent under this Government. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A Minister cannot simply stand up and quote another set of numbers that are completely unrelated to the question. The question was: how many of the people who are currently waiting more than 6 months to see a specialist—many of those people are very sick—can look forward to being culled from the waiting list in the next 12 months? Will any of them be culled in the next 12 months? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In the first instance the figures I am quoting to the member are the figures I have received under advice that the number of people waiting for a first specialist assessment for longer than 6 months which is the area we have to show concern about has actually fallen by 42 percent under this Government. In so far as the question relates to what may happen to others that is dependent on the professional clinical view of those who are responsible for looking at the interim reports they get from general practitioners and on the decisions they make to refer those patients back to their general practitioner for further assessment. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Who does the Minister seriously expect reasonable people to believe on matters of elective surgery: himself—the four out of 10 Minister who says that the National Party is crisis-mongering and who has said: “It’s not fair it’s not true and it’s time it stopped.”—or the senior surgeon in New Zealand the chairman of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons who says that talk of the crisis is not manufactured and in fact—as we have heard—the numbers are getting worse? Who does he really think people will believe? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I believe these two facts because I know them to be absolutely correct: more than 400000 New Zealanders have been seen by a specialist this year and the 10000 to 14000 people who have been referred back to a general practitioner represent about 2.5 percent of those who have actually been seen by a specialist. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will any of the people currently waiting for a first specialist assessment be culled from that waiting list in the next year? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I cannot answer that definitively because that is in the judgment of those who are looking at the system. I do know that those who are referred back for further assessment are deemed by clinical assessment not to require urgent attention and that it is deemed there is merit in having a further assessment at a general practitioner level. And any Opposition members who want to cast aspersions on the inadequacy of the general practitioner system in this country should actually look carefully at the important service to the country that the primary health care general practitioner clinicians offer in their own areas. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table an interview where the Minister of Health said general practitioners who refer patients to waiting lists in Hawke’s Bay are “unethical”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt my colleague during that point of order but during that particular exchange there was a very very audible interjection from a section of the House that should well be in your eyesight. We do note that a number of our members have been asked to leave the Chamber at various times for similar interjections but today there was no intervention from you and the particular offender was not required to leave. I just ask you to please look for consistency in the way you deal with the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Brownlee. Members are on their last warning for this session. Please do not make any comment at all including chatting to each other because I think we need to have absolute silence when questions are being asked. 
Biodiversity Strategy—Hooker’s Sea Lions 
7.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Is his decision to allow the squid fishery to kill 55 percent more Hooker’s sea lions the rarest sea lion in the world consistent with the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 The answer is yes. The Government’s biodiversity strategy states as a desired outcome for marine biodiversity that “any harvesting is done in an informed controlled and ecologically sustainable manner.” In respect of the New Zealand sea lion management of by-catch from the squid fishery is informed by annual surveys of sea lion populations and of all fishing activities. It is controlled by a fishing related mortality limit set by the Minister of Fisheries and enforced by satellite vessel monitoring and by observers. Finally the impacts of the squid fishery are managed in an ecologically sustainable manner by ensuring that the sea lion by-catch is kept comfortably within what the best available science suggests is necessary to ensure that the sea lion population is maintained at a sustainable level. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will he ensure the ecological sustainability set out in the biodiversity strategy is maintained by insisting the squid fishery uses jiggers instead of trawling in the Southern Ocean given that the simple use of jigging technology will almost certainly completely avoid killing any Hooker’s sea lions and would not this be a simple and relatively cost-effective way of supporting the industry without threatening the extinction of this New Zealand endangered species? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am advised as Minister of Fisheries that the severe ocean conditions around the Auckland Islands—which is the area we are talking about where these sea lions are a by-catch—can be both difficult and hazardous for squid jigging vessels. For this reason I am unwilling to require extended no-trawl zones around the Auckland Islands in order to encourage jigging alternatives until such methods have been further tested and proven both feasible and safe in this fishery. Although I am concerned about the mortality of sea lions of course I am also concerned about the mortality of fishermen. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister not think it is inconsistent for the Government of which he is a part to be criticising Norway and Japan for the hunting of minke whales while right here at home he allows the increased slaughter of the Hooker’s sea lion a species classified by the World Conservation Union as being much closer to extinction than the minke; and does his decision not really mean that as long as there are a few of these animals left in New Zealand the rest are allowed to die? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think that to compare the so-called scientific basis on which the Japanese are promoting whaling when there is no effective market for whaling and there is a real threat to the whale population if they are hunted deliberately with a by-catch of sea lions the numbers of which are well within any sustainable range is a far cry and a long bow. The best scientific advice I have in front of me is that there would be a level of up to 550 sea lions caught and that that would be the limit at which we would start to concern ourselves about the sustainability of sea lions on a one-off basis. The decision I made to allow the squid fishery to continue when there is an abundance of squid and they are caught only once—use it or lose it—was made on the basis that 150 sea lions caught in one season would not come anywhere near the consideration of sustainability that scientists have advised me about. 
Research Science and Technology—Contestable Government Funding 
8.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Does he intend to move ahead with major changes away from contestable Government funding for science research and technology given a University of Auckland report found that “evidence from the operation of the contestable funding system clearly shows that its introduction saw … significant improvement in performance and relevance of services provided.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Contestability continues to be an important part of the science system but too much contestability can affect the ability of our scientists and our science organisations to carry out their research. We want to move towards a more balanced system that does not have so high a level of contestability. I point out that the model we have in New Zealand has a very high level of contestability—in fact it is the highest of any country in the OECD. Evidence from discussion with the sector recent evaluations through parts of the Research Science and Technology vote and the yet-to-be-released OECD report that was produced recently when OECD officials went through the country all showed the need for a change to a more balanced science funding system. The foundation will now go out and talk with the sector about the details of this funding model before it is finally implemented. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why did his Government introduce highly contestable performance-based research funding into New Zealand’s universities only a few years ago if it was a system that did not deliver quality results or could not be sustained? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I imagine that the member is referring to the introduction of the Performance-based Research Fund—yes? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Indeed. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That was something I did. If members look at the model they will notice that the model is based upon sustaining excellence— 
Hon Bill English 
: Another Maharey mess. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to Mr English that I do not hear the member saying he would change it. The introduction of that model was of course something that allows for a 6-yearly reviewable cycle. This is not contestable in the sense that most science research is. It is an outstanding model that is having outstanding results. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What changes is the Minister proposing to make science and technology funding more stable? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: While maintaining appropriate levels of contestability we intend to work with the sector to negotiate longer-term programmes for those who have a proven track record to do a systematic technical review of science programmes to reduce the cost and complexity of funding processes to identify the essential backbone infrastructure and to continue to increase the capability of our Crown research institutes. As well as strengthening the economic contribution of science these changes will ensure that we retain scientists and ensure that they have a clear career path. That is why we are doing it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does science Minister Maharey disagree with the Steve Maharey who was an Associate Minister of Education who said: “The introduction of contestable research funding through the PBRF would lead to excellence and had the strong support of the community and the sector.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before to Mr Hutchison the Opposition spokesperson on this topic what we did with the Performance-based Research Fund was introduce a system that is 6-yearly renewable. That is a reviewable process and it is exactly the kind of model that is being mooted for introduction to a larger amount of the science coming through the forced fund. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why is he ploughing ahead with his plan when he can give no hard evidence of any benefits in his answer to written questions—and that is because the scientific and economic literature shows no benefits—or does the Minister assert that rigorous evidence need not underpin the design of science-funding systems? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government is powering ahead because that is what we always do as a Government to introduce this new funding model. It is clear from the reviews of the science sector—reviews by such people as the OECD—that a more balanced model closer to the kinds of models we see in some other very successful science communities around the world will serve the country well. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does he agree with the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples who recommended that social delivery services should continue to be specifically targeted and tailored to the needs of Maori requiring more targeted research evaluation and a statistical basis or does he think the $1 million announced last week out of a total vote of $633 million or 0.16 percent is enough to spend on indigenous Maori knowledge given that the Maori population is 15 percent and rising? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There were a number of questions in there about comments made by the rapporteur and the answer would be that we still see the need to deliver services on the basis of need and that need often is amongst Maori and that yes we think we do need to research and evaluate that expenditure so that we know it is making an impact on the needs of Maori. On the question of whether we think that $1 million out of $653 million is enough for indigenous knowledge I think that if the member checks he will find that there is a major strategy within the forced funding model which will result in more than a million dollars being spent on that particular area of knowledge. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What further actions does he intend to take to ensure that New Zealand science drives the country’s economic transformation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has a large number of proposals which will result in the promotion of the uptake of science in New Zealand the commercialisation of new research ideas the stabilisation of funding for the sector longer-term funding models for the sector and working with the sector to ensure it is able to develop a highly skilled workforce—in other words a very comprehensive programme indeed. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard who said: “Contestable funding moves the emphasis to quality over quantity in research.”; if not why is the Minister reducing the use of contestable funding for Crown research institutes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before contestability will remain part of the funding model where it is useful to what we are doing. In other parts of the model we will be adopting one of providing for capability development. We will be funding those long-term data sets for example that do not need to be contestable. We will be negotiating longer-term contracts with people. I would invite the member if he does not like this to put up an alternative model and we will see how long it lasts. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a newsletter from the Labour Party’s own website dated 4 May 2006 where Steve Maharey praises the contestable funding model. 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second document is a written question in which Minister Maharey fails to demonstrate any benefit to science from his proposed plans. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Schools—Bullying 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to reduce bullying in schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Today I announced a new $9.5 million fund to help schools promote positive behaviour and reduce the kind of disruptive behaviour that one sometimes sees in the House. This funding will contribute to our work around eliminating bullying by providing resources and guidance to schools so that they can deal with the impact of disruptive behaviour. The new funding will help ensure that every school is able to provide a safe and productive learning environment for its students. It is part of a wider reducing-violence package to be announced in the Budget. 
Moana Mackey 
: How will this programme improve educational outcomes for students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Disruptive behaviour in schools affects everyone’s learning negatively in some way. Offenders and their classmates do not get a chance to get on with their learning teachers become stressed and the links between school and home can break down. So this initiative will provide additional support for schools to ensure that children with severe behavioural problems can stay in school; better information and resources to ensure that there are good policies and guidelines for every school; a new behaviour screening tool that will help schools identify at an early stage children at risk then act on the issue; and a continuation of Project Early in Christchurch and Auckland. All of those will help deal with disruptive behaviour in our schools. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister agree that the sustainable alleviation of bullying in schools will not be effected by packaged programmes such as Kia Kaha but can be achieved only by the creation of school cultures of physical and verbal non-violence; and how will this funding boost bring about the cultural changes required so that we no longer lead the world in bullying levels as the 1997 third international maths and science study report showed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is right. The major change that we want of course is consistency of behaviour across schools that leads to young people not getting themselves involved in disruptive behaviour. But I would add that it is impossible for schools to deliver this on their own; they have the pupils for only 6 hours a day. I think one of the most important things we need to do is say that that culture needs to extend into the home so that the good behaviours that are developed in the school are reinforced there. As I have said a number of times I urge parents to contact their school find out what it is doing and reinforce that same pattern of behaviour in the home. 
Roading—Congestion Charges Auckland 
10.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does she support the reported comments by Auckland Mayor Dick Hubbard in relation to congestion charges for Auckland’s roads that Auckland cannot afford to reject an idea being adopted increasingly by overseas cities; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am not prepared to prejudge the review. It has gone through a consultation process up to this point. Mayor Dick Hubbard is entitled to his views. He is a member of the public and he is entitled to express his views. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Does she believe we should be looking for leads from huge cities like London which has a very developed roading network and a world-class public transport system or should we be looking to emulate more comparable examples such as Sydney and Melbourne which are rolling out massive amounts of new roading and not even contemplating congestion charging? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the study with its five options actually is looking at congestion charging and that is what public opinion is being sought on. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How many submissions were received on the Auckland road pricing evaluation study? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There has been a lot of interest. I understand that over 900 submissions have been received from organisations local authorities and individuals. Everyone has had the opportunity to have his or her say. The submissions have now closed. I am sure Maurice Williamson would like to have a say on it and may well have done so because he has had many years of experience first as Minister of Transport and then as Opposition spokesperson on transport. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Does the Minister think it is sensible to be even contemplating a congestion charge to try to keep people off roads when those roads do not even exist in Auckland and the serious problem is a network that does not exist and what would be even more bizarre would be then to add a congestion charge to keep people off the roads that are not there? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I understand that the study found that despite major planned capacity increases in the Auckland network—for example the Mount Roskill extension and even the completion of the western ring route—a significant additional investment in transport has also gone in and in 10 years’ time Auckland could have up to 20 percent more congestion than it does at present. It is a bit like the chicken and the egg. Do we start planning for how we will address the congestion? Does that start first? How do we pay for it? Or do we start by saying we will finish the roads before we know how we will do that? 
David Bennett 
: Does the Minister agree with recent media releases by both Waitakere City Council and North Shore City Council that claim there exists a pressing need to provide attractive transport alternatives particularly public transport prior to the introduction of road pricing measures? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly believe we need to support public transport and this study does have included in it a need to address public transport as well. But I could perhaps lead the member to a very good project that has already started in Auckland called the North Shore busway. It is this sort of innovation that we ought to be looking at to help improve—[ 
Interruption 
] Would the member like to get on his feet and ask me that question? I will get my staff to bring down my bus ticket. I bet I have been on a bus more often than that member has. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Was it a booze bus? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Nick Smith has just made what I think was an unparliamentary comment. He insinuated something that I think he might perhaps want to reflect on and withdraw. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Minister referred to travelling often on buses and I asked whether it was a booze bus. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member should please withdraw and apologise. The Minister has taken objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister clarify the position: is it not true that Auckland’s roading problems are in large measure a result of former National Government deliberate underfunding—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is asking a question. I have been asked to apply the rule across the board. If I did most of the cross-bench members would be out. Please continue. 
Peter Brown 
: —a result of deliberate underfunding policies of previous National Governments voting against Winston Peters’ bill in 1995 and scaling back the 2.1c that was going from the Crown bank account into the National Land Transport Fund in 1999; has that not had an adverse impact on Auckland’s roading problems? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It most definitely has. We had almost a decade of abysmal underfunding in the Auckland region. It always makes one wonder how sincere the comments now are when a party did not invest when it had the opportunity but then weeps crocodile tears at a time when it does not think a Government has invested. This Government has invested considerably. There has been 10 times more investment in major roading projects in Auckland since we became the Government compared with when National was last in Government. 
David Bennett 
: Following from that does the Government intend to fund the Auckland Regional Council’s $700 million shortfall in passenger transport spending recently identified in the draft long-term council community plan? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the member will have to wait and see whether there is anything in the Budget. 
David Bennett 
: Given that road pricing is due in 2011 at best and that the Auckland Regional Council shortfall will delay key public transport initiatives beyond 2011 what action will the Government take to alleviate congestion of Auckland’s roading network over the next 5 years? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can tell the member that we are actively working on it right now. 
David Bennett 
: How then does the Minister intend to gain approval for and implement a road pricing scheme if key passenger initiatives are not funded? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all we will wait until the results of the review and we have heard the public submissions. We will then inform the House what we are going to do. 
Women’s Affairs Ministry—Nomination Service 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women's Affairs 
: What steps is she taking in response to the proposal in the New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation 2006 to allow the Ministry of Women’s Affairs nomination service to be used by private sector companies interested in women’s appointments to boards of directors? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 I have asked the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to explore how the success it has achieved in the public sector can be shared with the private sector. I have already informally raised the issue with both the chair and the chief executive of the New Zealand Exchange and I will be exploring ideas with them. My advice is that the nomination service was originally set up in 1979 under a National Government as the women’s appointment file and was then included in the Ministry of Women’s Affairs as the nomination service by another National Government in 1992. I look forward to National members’ support. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen the letter to the editor in today’s  
Dominion Post  
that states: “shareholders are legally entitled to have the most qualified people available—regardless of gender—to manage a company’s affairs.”; if so how does she reconcile that with the proposal? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I have and I fully endorse the comments apart from the mistaken reference to management rather than governance. The proposal is about ensuring the businesses concerned know who all of the qualified people are before they select the most qualified to meet the board’s requirements and shareholder expectations. Everyone knows that diversity adds real strength to decision making and that is why I can explore the proposal in the way that I will. 
Tsunami Warning—Information Management 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Is he satisfied with the management of information arising from the tsunami warning this morning? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Minister reconcile his press release of 30 March 2006—and I quote: “Never before has Civil Defence had such an effective network with councils and regions.” and “New Zealanders can be assured that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is ready and prepared for any emergency.”—with the debacle that occurred this morning and which he has accepted the ministry messed up? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There was no acceptance of a mess-up. If the BBC which is a reliable news outlet says there is a tsunami when there was not says there is a tsunami heading to New Zealand when there was not says it is aimed at Gisborne when it was not and says there is police alert when there was not and if people accept the value of that news report then the BBC is at fault. The member cannot point the finger at the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management for that. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What action did the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management take in response to that? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The earthquake occurred at 3.27 this morning and immediately afterwards the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii was in contact with the national controller. There were discussions on and off until 4 a.m. when it was reasonably clear there was no significant risk to New Zealand. At 4.30 a.m. the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center reissued its warning but excluded New Zealand. A message was then put on the emergency number by New Zealand civil defence. At 5 o’clock this morning the national crisis management centre was staffed and at 5.36 this morning the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center cancelled its warnings because the sea level monitoring gauges at Niue Apia and Pago Pago indicated there was no risk of a tsunami at all. At 6 o’clock civil defence was monitoring the New Zealand media and at that time the New Zealand media were carrying no warning of a tsunami. It was only at 6.45 a.m. that the national centre became aware that the BBC was issuing such bulletins and it immediately issued its own notice saying there was no tsunami warning. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Government provide New Zealanders with waterproof radios because on today’s performance we may well be swimming by the time civil defence manages to send a press release to radio stations as to whether a tsunami is on the way given that it took 3½ hours this morning? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There are about 20 events such as this each year. If the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management issued warnings for each one of them New Zealanders would be sick and tired of reacting when there was in fact a civil defence emergency. Civil defence staff in New Zealand were on the case immediately after the earthquake warning. They were managing the situation and they were accurately on top of their job. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain why when there was an earthquake at 3.30 a.m. and when the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued its warning at 3.40 a.m. there was no statement at all from his ministry until 6.50 a.m.; what sort of emergency service takes 3 hours to make any statement? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member like a lot of Opposition members misdiagnoses and then “misprognoses” the situation in that presentation. The fact is that moments after the earthquake the New Zealand controller was aware of the earthquake was in contact with the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center and was constantly assessing the risk to New Zealand. At 4 o’clock the best advice the staff had on the basis of their knowledge and local advice was that there was no threat of a tsunami to New Zealand. No warning had been issued. There was no need for a warning to be issued. The only time it became necessary to issue a warning about a tsunami was when the BBC got the situation exactly wrong by saying there was a tsunami when there was not and when it got it exactly wrong by saying it was heading to New Zealand when it was not. We then had to correct the error of the media. The media have a responsibility to report matters accurately. They did not do so on this occasion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister’s department spent any time in the last year or in the last 3 hours on preparing documents to advise citizens on how to prepare for a tsunami when there is no tsunami? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I think some good things came out of this event. The first thing is that some years ago a tsunami warning was given out on the East Coast and people went to the beach to watch. The best thing about this event is that when people believed a tsunami was on the way they fled. That shows a dramatic change in attitude by New Zealanders. People are now increasingly aware of the danger and that is a good thing. I assure the public that we are better prepared today than we were 12 months ago and in 12 months’ time we will be even better prepared again. 
Moana Mackey 
: Would the Minister have been concerned if the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center had not issued a warning given the size of the earthquake in Tonga and the very real risk at the time of the earthquake that a tsunami event could occur; and does he believe that had it not issued a warning he would be standing here today and answering questions from the National Party about why one was not issued? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member is exactly right. As I have said to the House before there are approximately 20 events like this in the Pacific every year and they are managed intelligently and carefully by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. We cannot overreact to each one of them because if we did the public would then get sick and tired of the warnings and would take no action when there was a genuine warning. We have a responsibility to tell people to the best of our knowledge what will happen. The BBC did not do that. It said a tsunami was coming when clearly there was not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain why when Newstalk ZB and Television New Zealand repeatedly tried to contact the civil defence service between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. this morning they got no answer or an answerphone and when they tried to phone the Minister they could get no answer or response; and what does that say about the level of preparedness New Zealand has for a real civil defence emergency? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is well prepared for a tsunami warning. I accept that some people were misinformed and misunderstood the situation. We will go through this event very thoroughly and I am sure that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management will change its operating procedures. But it is impossible to protect the New Zealand public against an erroneous message carried by a media organisation. I want to say to Nick Smith that my phone was beside my bed all night. I had one phone call at 5.30 a.m. from the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management to tell me no tsunami was coming. No other person rang me. I can check the log so if that member says that news organisations rang me and I did not respond at 6 o’clock that is wrong. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why this afternoon in the House has the Minister proceeded to blame both the media and the National Party when his own statement said that the response this morning was inadequate and when in the answer to my first question he said that he was not satisfied with the civil defence management this morning; and can he be specific about what was inadequate in the management of the tsunami warning this morning? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: When I said “No.” in answer to the member’s question I meant that the management of the information—principally by the BBC—was appalling. The corporation was wrong on every fact and people took its reputation seriously and reacted to that. We realise that in the future we cannot afford to be blind-sided by media organisations that are not carrying correct stories and we will change the way we advise the public and the media accordingly. There will be improvements. I say to the House that of the 20 such events we have each year this is the first time that this thing has been wrong and it has been wrong because of wrong information put out by a media organisation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister having accepted that the response by his ministry this morning was in his words “not good enough” apologise to the thousands of New Zealanders who thought their lives were endangered this morning and who were grossly inconvenienced because his ministry failed to make any statement till 3 hours after the event? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I do not accept the member’s version of the words I used. I do not accept that at all. Secondly if anybody is going to apologise to the residents of Gisborne it should be the BBC because the BBC said there was a tsunami the BBC said it was on the way to New Zealand and the BBC said there was a police warning out. That is what the BBC said and I think it should give an apology to the public of Gisborne. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I noted that the Minister said I had been incorrect in using his words that the response this morning was “not good enough”. I seek leave of the House to table the direct quote from the  
New Zealand Herald  
website titled: “Minister admits tsunami reaction not good enough”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the news releases from the North Shore Gisborne Napier and Christchurch councils stating how appalled they were at the communications from the ministry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Points of Order 
Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 400(b). Earlier Dr Nick Smith told the House that he had not tabled a document requested by Winston Peters because he thought he had been denied leave. Every member in this House knows that when one is granted leave one is approached by a messenger who asks for the document. Yesterday we observed Dr Smith being asked for the document after he was granted leave. I therefore ask you Madam Speaker to consider whether Dr Nick Smith has deliberately misled this House by raising that excuse for not doing what he had undertaken to do. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. There are proper ways to raise that matter and that is not one of them. But I also note that I accepted Dr Smith’s word in the House—that his memory was that that document had not been accepted. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect the facts are that Dr Smith sought to table a document. He was then approached obviously by an official of the House as to the tabling of that document. I myself observed that and that is why I raise the issue of his not being prepared to hand that document to the House’s official. He was on notice therefore and his excuse today does not hold up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I am sorry. If members want to raise that matter there is a proper way to do it and it is not in this House. I ask them to do it in that way. I have also said what my ruling was at the beginning when the matter first arose. But the member is perfectly entitled to raise the matter with me in the appropriate way. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Two members have challenged my word and I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that I actually sought to table several documents yesterday. I have checked back through the records and those tablings were either denied or accepted. The other point I wish to raise is that my word has been further questioned in respect of the issue today of the civil defence ministry. I wish to inform the House that Newstalk ZB advised me this morning that it had attempted to phone the ministry—that it had attempted to phone it several times between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m.—and it also informed me that it had attempted to phone the Minister directly and had received no response. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Bill English seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the leak of a commercially sensitive Cabinet document relating to the telecommunications stocktake. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of Government but I do not consider it a matter of sufficient importance to require the House to set aside its pre-arranged business. The test is a high one. This may be a sensitive matter but in itself it lacks the exceptional policy substance necessary to justify the urgent attention of the House. There are other parliamentary opportunities in which this matter can be examined. The request is therefore declined. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am just trying to work out the right words for this but I find your decision extraordinary. The conduct of the executive and its accountability to this Parliament are always matters of importance. This particular circumstance where the event on which I am seeking a debate is unprecedented in its significance and in its breach of proper process by the executive and those advisers who serve it must be a matter of importance to this Parliament. When I consider the debates that have been accepted by previous Speakers and by yourself I think that any number of them—in fact I think almost all of them—are of lesser significance than the context of executive accountability to Parliament the subject of this debate. The effect of your ruling is to say that a Minister may have chosen to leak that document deliberately which could have led to major shifts in the value of New Zealand’s biggest company but that that is not sufficiently important for this Parliament to debate it. The fact here is that it is not the consequences of the leak that are of vital interest; it is rather that the executive is conducting itself in a way that undermines good government and in a way that Parliament naturally takes as a matter of serious accountability. 
You have accepted that the debate meets two criteria: it is a recent occurrence and it involves ministerial responsibility. I seek in the interests of accepting the ruling further elaboration on why this matter lacks importance because that is what you are saying. You are saying that this matter is not important enough for Parliament to debate which is the third leg of the test. I have to say after 16 years of listening to Speakers’ rulings on these matters in Parliament I am gobsmacked. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think firstly Madam Speaker that the member did indicate in the latter part of his comment that of course the ruling you have made is your province and I think it is important that we acknowledge that. Secondly I think the point you made in the course of your ruling that is of significance here is that there will be appropriate parliamentary opportunities to debate this matter. Thirdly Madam Speaker in the course of question time it has been made clear to all members that there is an inquiry under way. 
Hon Bill English 
: That has got nothing to do with this. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please allow the Minister to complete his statement in silence. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: At that point Madam Speaker the substance of the matter will be clear to all and sundry when the report is issued. In the meantime you have made a ruling and it is up to members of the House to observe that in an appropriate manner. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The Government has sought to introduce the notion of its own inquiry into this debate and I think it would find that that is counter-productive. What the executive chooses to do about that is of no interest to this Parliament. The decision about this debate hinges entirely on its importance to this Parliament. I submit to you Madam Speaker that the fact the Government has initiated an inquiry and has taken the issue so seriously underlines the fact that this is a matter of great public importance and deserves urgent consideration. Only Ministers and three officials had that piece of paper so the Minister I think has lent weight to my case. He has made it clear that the Government is taking the matter seriously. The Government has initiated a wide-ranging inquiry into it and if you took that into account you would almost certainly take the view that this is a matter sufficiently important to debate. I ask you to reflect Madam Speaker on other issues that have been regarded as sufficiently important to warrant debate: conduct of Ministers on issues that have affected a handful of people—nothing nearly as significant and large-scale as this leak or its consequences. So if the Government wants to make the point that it is holding an inquiry that simply underlines how important it is that Parliament gets a full opportunity for debate. 
The Minister also said that other parliamentary occasions are available. Actually they are not. There is no opportunity for a parliamentarian to speak for 10 or 15 minutes on this issue—none. That of course is why we have these debates because the matters are so serious they warrant extended debate and thorough debate. Otherwise we just put everything off to the 5-minute speeches of the general debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not think I need to hear any more and I thank members for their comments. I want to assure members I did consider the matter very seriously. I did look at  
Speakers’ Rulings  
and I did seek advice and my decision stands. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to debate according to the speaking times of a snap debate the matter of the leak of a commercially sensitive Budget document regarding Telecom New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Debate interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the document I referred to today which shows that Maori women are more likely to experience a delay of longer than 6 months in relation to cervical screening. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Debate resumed. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] Not only has Bill English interrupted again when I started my point of order but he interrupted you before. But the point of order I am raising is quite separate. He challenged your decision and suggested that you had been leaned on in making that decision. That is grossly out of order and I think action should be taken against that member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the comment but if the member said that would he please withdraw and apologise. I personally considered this matter very seriously. I certainly understand that the member thinks seriously about it but I have to judge all factors and that is what I did as Speaker—not as Chair of the House but as Speaker. Would the member please withdraw and apologise if he made that comment on my impartiality. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you very much. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think you should in any way underestimate our surprise at not getting this snap debate. I think it would be useful—given the very very considered views put by the Hon Bill English and your consequent response suggesting that you had personally spent a lot of time thinking about this particular issue—and not too much to ask for you to tell us why you think Parliament should not be able to express a view on the very very serious leak of a Budget document that we know was held by only Ministers and three officials. Clearly there is a major problem here. The Government has to deal with it but Parliament must surely be able to express a view. If that is not to be the case and that is your ruling then perhaps it would be fair to give us more reason for that view than simply that you do not consider it appropriate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have judged the matter in terms of both the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. I have balanced the factors and I have made the decision consistent with the way in which the rulings are given. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this in most serious terms because you have to make a judgment about how important an issue is and whether it deserves the attention of the House. I have been in this House for nearly 20 years and I have never seen an event that has had such a dramatic impact on the value of New Zealand’s biggest company. That is clear. I have a press statement that came out just before lunchtime that states that $1.1 billion—not million but $1.1 billion—had been wiped off the value of one of New Zealand’s biggest companies a company in which a lot of ordinary New Zealanders hold shares. If that is not a very important issue that was sparked by the leak and the scurry to sort it out then I simply do not know of anything of that magnitude that has occurred in this Parliament during my time. I ask you to reflect on that and on whether you have seen anything bigger that was caused by the actions of a leaked document and by officials running round and Ministers releasing stuff so that by this morning Telecom’s share price dropped below the $5 mark. I believe that is the biggest ever implication I have seen from such an action. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That was certainly one of the factors I took into account. Is there anything further? I have ruled on this matter. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My point is simply this. That argument that was put to you by Mr Williamson is totally refuted by the facts of the Australian share market which was trading after the New Zealand announcement. It was there that the share market saw a change in the shares not on the basis of the leak. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter and if the member wishes to continue on this matter I will rule his point of order out of order. If it is an entirely new matter that is appropriate but I will rule the member out of order if he continues the debate on my ruling. 
JOHN KEY 
: Madam Speaker I am not attempting to challenge your ruling. I understand your ruling but I would like to raise a different element of that ruling which is that my colleague Mr English rightfully raised the issue of this being of significant importance. If one is to think through what occurred on this particular occasion one will see that this was an action that was brought forward on the part of the Government because the leak of itself breached the stock exchange rules. If the company itself had not rung the Minister’s office and simply gone public with this information it would have been demanded and required to do that because of the stock exchange. That would have been an issue of unparalleled importance to the New Zealand financial markets. If this information came from the Minister’s office that Minister could not survive in Cabinet. These are the rules that establish and control the financial markets of New Zealand and—not wishing to challenge your ruling—you are telling the Opposition today that this is not a matter of importance. Yet the very rules that drive our stock exchange were breached. It cannot be a matter that is not important. It simply must be. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. We are starting to relitigate but I appreciate his comments. I have considered all the matters very seriously consistent with the rules of the Standing Orders and previous Speakers’ rulings. I now call on Government order of the day No. 1. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this matter Mr Brownlee. The debate is actually becoming repetitious so if you wish to remain in the House you will allow the House to move on. I call on Government order of the day No. 1. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have not challenged your ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee but everything I have heard is a challenge even though you are not saying you are challenging it. There is nothing more to be said on this matter. I have ruled. I want now for the Government’s business to continue with Government order of the day No. 1. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is with some disappointment that I wish to announce to this House that we will hold a press conference later this afternoon to fully explain our position because this is the most serious loss of opportunity for us that the Chair has ever denied— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to do that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and I am afraid Madam Speaker that it will lead to a suggestion that there is collusion between the Government and the Speaker to prevent this matter being discussed in Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee but if you make that allegation you had better have the evidence to prove it; otherwise it is a very serious matter. [ 
Interruption 
] You have intimated that that is maybe what you would do. All I am saying to you is that if you do you must be prepared to back it up with evidence. There was no collusion with anyone in the making of this decision. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With the greatest of respect it is not a matter of you waiting around for a press conference for the member to make that allegation; he has made it right in front of you right now and that is totally unacceptable. Unless he withdraws and apologises for what was a clear threat by inference or by any other way then he should be removed from this House. He is meant to be a senior member of the National Party. He is in fact No. 2 and is his party’s spokesman in the House on the House’s order. He cannot get away with doing that. I have never seen anybody make that sort of allegation and get away with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What I heard Mr Brownlee say was that he was not making that allegation but it was a possibility that there would be a press conference. If I misheard I apologise to the member. I accept his word that he has not made that allegation. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that I did not make that allegation— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have accepted that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and my  
Hansard 
 will show that. But I do think that the tension around this may well be alleviated if the Government would recognise the situation we are in and be a bit more flexible and reasonable on this matter. So I seek leave once more for this House to have a debate conducted under the rules of a snap debate led off by the Hon Bill English who put the letter in in the first place—now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move at the appropriate time that this bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 August 2006. 
Te Arawa is a large confederation of iwi and hapu consisting of approximately 40000 members. Its traditional area of interest ranges from Maketu to Tongariro in the south. In 1987 the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board on behalf of Te Arawa lodged the Te Arawa lakes claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. Rather than proceeding with a hearing Te Arawa entered into preliminary discussions with the Crown. For nearly 20 years Te Arawa has sought to settle its grievances in relation to the Te Arawa lakes. This bill will settle all of Te Arawa’s historical Treaty claims arising from Crown actions in relation to the lakes from 1840 to 1992 and any claims relating to the annuity payments. In settling these claims the Crown acknowledges the spiritual cultural economic and traditional importance of the lakes and their resources to Te Arawa. 
The Crown also acknowledges that a number of Crown actions have caused grievance to Te Arawa. The Crown acknowledges for example that it failed to legislate for a sufficient number of fishing licences for Te Arawa in 1908 when it promoted legislation to address the problem of hardship. The Crown acknowledges that the introduction of exotic fish species significantly depleted the indigenous species upon which Te Arawa depended for food hospitality trade and koha. The Crown further acknowledges that Te Arawa petitioned the Crown for several years concerning the depletion of indigenous species and access to new species and that some members of Te Arawa were prosecuted for fishing without a licence in the lakes during that time. 
The Crown acknowledges that it failed to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa as part of its 1922 agreement regarding the lakes when that annuity lost value materially as a result of inflation. Although the 1922 agreement is not challenged by this settlement this bill will settle all Te Arawa’s historical claims relating to the lakes at any time between 1840 and 1992 including any claims relating to the 1922 agreement the Native Land Amendment and Native Lands Claims Adjustment Act 1922 and the annuity payments pursuant to the 1922 agreement. 
I wish at this time to acknowledge the work of the former Ministers of treaty negotiations the Hon Sir Douglas Graham and the Hon Margaret Wilson whose efforts have culminated in the bill that is before this House today. I also wish to acknowledge the Hon Parekura Horomia and former Ministers of Maori Affairs whose efforts have contributed to this settlement. 
In December 2004 Te Arawa overwhelmingly agreed to a settlement package to settle its historical grievances by signing the deed of settlement. In developing the deed of settlement both the Crown and Te Arawa agreed that the protection of the lakes and the protection of the public’s right to access and use the lakes were of critical importance. This bill gives effect to aspects of that agreement. The bill settles all of Te Arawa’s claims including those in relation to the annuity to the lakes. It vests the fee simple estate of 13 lake beds in Te Arawa with the Crown retaining ownership of the water column and the airspace above the lake beds. The bill records a formal apology to Te Arawa to the tupuna to their descendants and to the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi relating to the Te Arawa lakes. The bill provides a statutory acknowledgment to recognise Te Arawa’s long spiritual cultural historical economic and traditional associations with the lakes.  
 The bill provides a financial redress of $2.7 million to recognise the economic loss suffered by Te Arawa arising from breaches by the Crown of its treaty obligations in relation to the lakes. In doing so the rights of the general public to access the lakes for recreational purposes are protected as are existing structures and commercial uses. The fee simple estate of Lake Okaro remains vested in the Rotorua District Council. 
The bill also establishes the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group as a joint committee under the Local Government Act 2002. The strategy group is made up of representatives from Environment Bay of Plenty the Rotorua District Council and the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. Its purpose is to advise on the sustainable management of the lakes. 
The transfer of title to the lake beds and the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group addresses the grievances of Te Arawa and engages both Te Arawa and the community in the management of the lakes. I think that is an important area of cooperation in this agreement. The bill makes it clear that this is a final settlement of all the historical claims Te Arawa has in relation to the 14 lakes. 
I wish to assure the public that the Crown is confident of the validity of the claims settled by this bill and has negotiated with the interests of the taxpayer in mind and in full cognisance of the fact that the lakes provide significant enjoyment for many New Zealanders. I also want to congratulate Te Arawa on the open and transparent way it has approached these negotiations. Te Arawa’s tenacity in dealing with a number of Governments over the years and its willingness to have regard to the interests of New Zealand society as a whole in negotiating the settlement are admirable in my view. 
Treaty settlement negotiations can as members know be difficult and occasionally contentious. Treaty settlement negotiations require the Crown to balance a range of interests. Challenges to settlements are not surprising given the nature of the interests that are potentially at stake. In the course of the Crown’s negotiations with Te Arawa a number of challenges were raised by some who were concerned about protecting their hapu interests. The Crown and Te Arawa worked to ensure that the issues raised by those people were addressed fairly. 
This settlement has a high level of support from members of Te Arawa with 93 percent of the eligible voters who participated in the deed of settlement ratification supporting the settlement offer. I wish to acknowledge those Te Arawa people including those no longer with us who suffered as a result of the Crown’s breaches of the treaty. E nga mate haere haere haere. To you the dead farewell. This bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and Te Arawa into the future. 
I wish to thank the other Ministers and departments involved in this settlement and in particular the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister of Finance the Minister for the Environment the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation who all supported the process throughout. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty for working with Te Arawa and demonstrating the meaning of partnership with iwi. I believe the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Rotorua are in the gallery today alongside a councillor from Environment Bay of Plenty. Their attendance I think as important representatives from local government further demonstrates the support this bill enjoys from within the Rotorua community. I want to acknowledge the Office of Treaty Settlements for the work done in seeking a just and fair settlement. As New Zealanders we can be proud that real and significant grievances are being recognised and settled peacefully within the law. 
In particular I would like to take time to thank the past and present members of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board for their dedication and determination on behalf of their people to seek a resolution of their grievances. This bill will dissolve the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board and release it from its duties allowing the Te Arawa Lakes Trust to take over. 
The people of Te Arawa have waited a long time and worked very hard to realise the settlement of their historical treaty claims to the lakes. I consider the bill should therefore proceed without delay to the Maori Affairs Committee and be reported back by 4 August 2006. That will allow the timely transfer of the settlement redress to Te Arawa. 
Finally I want to acknowledge the elders the members of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board the members of the newly established Te Arawa Lakes Trust the Te Arawa negotiators and the members of Te Arawa. They have been a constructive and conscientious group to work with and their commitment on behalf of their people their ancestors and their descendants has led us to this historic event. I want to welcome those members of Te Arawa who are in the gallery many of whom have travelled far to join us today to observe and be part of this important moment. This is an opportunity for us all to restore the integrity in the relationship between Te Arawa and the Crown. With that I have great pleasure and regard it a privilege to commend this bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is appropriate that we acknowledge in this House those who have gone before us who were part of the Te Arawa iwi and recognise that the discussions over these lakes have gone on for a great number of years. We should recognise that those discussions by and large were conducted in good faith and that those who were party to them were participating in those discussions and decisions in a manner that was determined towards getting the best result for Te Arawa and for the rest of the nation. 
When it comes to treaty settlements it is extremely important that the concept of full and final is well embedded. Although we freely admit that in most settlement cases—probably all—there is great generosity from the party being settled when it comes to comparative values today versus the time of either the confiscation or other grievance we none the less have to move forward and we do not have opportunities like this one simply to keep relitigating issues that should have been dealt with once and for all. So although National Party members will participate fully in the select committee process that considers the bill and will ask many many questions about the construction of the bill itself as well as about the intentions of the settlement we are not in a position today to support this reading. 
I hope during the select committee we may come to understand why Te Arawa have got back into this negotiation today when in 1922 they wrote to the King—I think it was George IV at the time—stating: “We thank you and Parliament for this year’s legislation fulfilling all promises and engagements made to the Arawas since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi thus again proving that England’s stated word is a sacred bond capable of fulfilment.” I do not think we could get a more powerful statement accepting that an arrangement should endure. 
National is prepared to recognise that the annuity needs to be tidied up. It is ridiculous. No one can do anything with such a small amount of money so on a commercial basis yes we should increase it. We support that provision in the bill without reservation. But the mere fact that there is an annuity gives weight to the argument that the settlement in 1922 or in the years subsequent was genuine and valid and should have been considered full and final. If the Office of Treaty Settlements has some other view then I want it to be made clear that it has never conveyed that viewpoint to National members. If the Government has another view and has some reason to back it up I want it to be made clear that it has never conveyed that viewpoint to us. 
So although we appreciate that there is a great need to speed up the process of treaty settlements in this country and a great need to move on from our times of grievance we are not able to support the bill in its current state. We will take some convincing that those who have gone before—who made a decision who accepted an undertaking from the Crown and who complimented the Crown on the arrangement—were somehow wrong and were somehow duped and that those who duped them somehow cheated them. That is not what the words of the letter say. 
It is worth pointing out that although the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations says the Crown is very happy with the bill Crown Law advised the Government that the settlement was not required. It advised that it was a political decision. If a Government makes a political decision then it should say so. It should not dress it up as being the settlement of some sort of longstanding grievance. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: It’s a justice decision; you know that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I believe that that letter to the King was sent with good intent. I do not think Te Arawa sent the letter to the King in 1922 as some sort of joke. I do not think their acknowledgment of the legislation as “fulfilling all promises and engagements made to the Arawas since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi” was just something out there in the ether that they could say then but that 82 years later their descendants could turn over. It worries a lot of New Zealanders that this process may never end. This bill unfortunately gives weight to that argument. It makes it difficult to move to the point that all New Zealanders would like to see where things are dealt with in a fairer way. 
I say to Mr Samuels that the part of this that is unjust is no doubt the annuity. We do not have any problem with fixing that. It is a crying shame that it was not fixed a lot sooner. If it is such a deep heartfelt thing for Mr Samuels why was it not fixed when he had the ministry—he having sat on that side of the House for 6 or 7 years now? 
As I said before we as a party have a commitment to seeing Treaty settlements completed speedily. We have a view that grievances should be settled fairly and that those grievances should be settled as a recognition lawfully that something was wrong. That is not the case here. It is very clear. The Crown’s own advisers are saying this is a political decision. Notwithstanding that let me again give our assurance that although our vote will not be in favour of the bill today our participation in the Maori Affairs Committee will be full and attentive. We will work to deliver a bill that does not see people back in this House in 82 years’ time saying that what we did today was somehow dishonourable and disreputable and that they need to have another go at it. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I thank members for their forbearance. Tihei mauri ora! Tuku mauri ora ki te wheiao ki te ao marama. Te Arawa waka Te Arawa tangata tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Koutou hoki nga rangatira koutou hoki i kawe mai tenei kaupapa i roto i nga piki me nga heke tena koutou katoa. Kei te koa te hari ka whakauru mai tenei pire inaianei na te mea kei kite mai te iwi whanui o Aotearoa te hohonutanga o te kaupapa nei. Tua atu i tena te roanga ake i tatari mai koutou ki te whakataungia te kaupapa nei. Te hari au mo koutou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Behold the sneeze of life to the world of enlightenment and awareness. To the canoe and people of Te Arawa to you the chiefs and especially those of you who were responsible for bringing this matter here despite the ups and downs greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. It is pleasing and timely for this bill to be presented now so that the people of New Zealand can see the depth of this matter. Further to that you have waited a long time to have this matter settled. I am overjoyed for you. 
] 
 The settlement between the Crown and Te Arawa hands ownership of the lakes to the Rotorua tribe; it vests the lake bed titles in the iwi. I must say the only difference between this issue and the Lake Taupo issue is that it involves more than one lake and the compensation is probably a little bit more than the Tuwharetoa settlement. The previous speaker raised concerns about the bill; if he and his party support the bill going to a select committee that will provide the opportunity to raise those issues. 
New Zealand First supports the bill as a settlement of a genuine historical grievance. We recognise that some members of Te Arawa have concerns about the terms of the settlement but by supporting the referral of the bill our party is giving those people the opportunity to articulate their concerns to the select committee. The best thing is that the bill includes the transfer of 13 lake beds to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust with the Crown retaining ownership of the water column and airspace. I think that Te Arawa needs to be recognised for the fact that they are sharing the responsibility of the care of what is essentially their asset with the rest of the community. I understand the Te Arawa Lakes Trust will include Environment Bay of Plenty the Rotorua District Council the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation. 
The bill protects recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating and provides conditions under which such activities can take place. I know that some people within the Rotorua community both Maori and non-Maori do not support the bill but given the support of a large number of those eligible to vote it is worthy that the bill has been brought to the House and will be referred to a select committee. 
The bill protects existing commercial activities but new commercial activities and structures will require consent from the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. The bill puts Te Arawa in charge of the lakes with the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty providing support. Te Arawa will not be liable for weeds or contamination within the lakes but that is an issue that requires a concerted and combined strategy by all stakeholders to ensure the sustainability of the lakes. I have no doubt that the trust’s members will certainly address that issue. The bill provides for the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group to promote the sustainable management of the lakes while recognising and providing for the traditional relationship of Te Arawa with their ancestral lakes. 
The bill essentially has four parts. Part 1 outlines the purpose of the Act which we are quite clear about; Part 2 provides cultural redress; Part 3 also contains other cultural redress; and Part 4 deals with miscellaneous provisions. I want to make it clear that New Zealand First supports the bill. I say that in spite of Te Arawa not coming to see us. But never mind kei te pai. We believe in the kaupapa. Te Arawa owns the lake bed and subsoil strata and that in itself gives it title. There might be some confusion about the seabed and foreshore issue. Some Maori may ask why what has been proposed in this bill cannot be proposed for the seabed and foreshore issue. But that is another matter. 
In the cultural redress provision rights and obligations of ownership are articulated. Firstly the title is vested in the trustees and they hold it on behalf of all the people of Te Arawa. Secondly a freehold estate in the lake beds is inalienable; that means they cannot put it on the market to get rid of it or mortgage it. No charge or mortgage is to be created. Transfer or transmission to trustees is permitted. Te Arawa is not liable for the weeds or contamination within the lakes but I am quite sure the trust itself has a responsibility to ensure that that issue is controlled. Cultural redress also contains recreational activities being protected and that includes but is not limited to swimming boating waterskiing and fishing activities. So those people who have buildings on the lake shore have their entitlements protected. It provides conditions under which those activities may take place. Of course there are recreational activities such as fishing and kayaking. In fact what has taken off within Maoridom is waka ama. But we want to be sure that the bill protects existing structures—that structures that are currently in or on a Te Arawa lake bed are protected. Of course the trust will need to do a structure audit. Conditions that apply to existing structures are set out and Te Arawa are not liable for existing structures. The bill talks about jetties boatsheds ramps moorings and other structures. 
I want to make sure that the people of Te Arawa are quire clear that this is a final settlement of a historical claim. I know they have been waiting quite a long time to see this come to some conclusion and I hope that the introduction of the bill and referral to the Maori Affairs Committee will go a long way towards settling this overdue issue. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I wish to acknowledge at the outset the people of Te Arawa who are here. As the deputy leader of the National Party said we acknowledge and understand the significance and the importance of this issue to the people of Te Arawa. I grew up in Reporoa so I am well familiar with Te Arawa’s relationship with the community and indeed with the lakes. 
I wish to make some particular points for the record. There will obviously be an opportunity in the future to hear the submissions to go through the material in the Maori Affairs Committee and to consider things. 
The first point to note is that I suggest that this is an unusual settlement. It is not of the same character as the settlements of Tainui of the various iwi of the Taranaki area and of various other iwi throughout the country. The reason is that this matter has already been subject to a settlement in the 1920s. That particular settlement was a result of a consensual process; it was not an imposed settlement. Everyone in this House would acknowledge that the situations of Tainui and of the Taranaki iwi in particular were quite different. There was a history of confiscation there as a result of the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s—a radically different situation from that of Te Arawa. In fact it is worth noting that Te Arawa has had a particularly friendly relationship with the Crown and that it has extended over a period beginning pre-1865 and continuing post-1865. I have to note at least for the sake of historical accuracy that that particular friendship was not always appreciated by neighbouring tribes particularly during that era. 
The reason I put that on the record is that that relationship flavoured the consensual nature of the 1920s settlement. As I said it was not a settlement that was born out of war or of oppression; it was one that was freely and fairly negotiated. But today we are revisiting it. That is one of the concerns that National has raised in the past and raises today. Free and consensual settlements ought to endure but in fact we are overturning this particular settlement. 
I turn to the two particular aspects of significance. As Mr Brownlee has noted the first element of the current settlement is the updating of the financial settlement. That part is very reasonable. The 1920s figure for the annuity ought to be updated and there is a very particular reason why I say that. No one in the 1920s whether on the side of the Crown or on that of Te Arawa could have anticipated the level of inflation that occurred in the subsequent 86 years. This might seem a rather artificial statement to make but the truth is that the 20th century experienced a vastly greater level of inflation than had ever ever occurred in the history of mankind. In the 18th and 19th centuries and in the centuries prior to them inflation was virtually non-existent—it was almost an unknown concept. It is truly a creation of the 20th century and to a significant degree it has disappeared in the last 10 years. So in that sense the annuity ought to be updated to remove effectively the effects of that inflation. That is being done and indeed it is being capitalised. National supports that particular aspect of the settlement and we have recorded that support today. 
The second part of the settlement however—and I have to put it this way—is the complete reversal of the position of the 1920s settlement. In 1922 the lake beds were transferred to the Crown effectively in return for the annuity. It was literally a sale if you will. Today we are reversing that sale but actually updating the annuity as well. So if we look at it in that sense we find that we are reversing a situation where actual consideration was given to the transfer of the lake beds and today are returning them as let us say a gift. But the effect of that is of course to call into question the enduring nature of consensual settlements. 
I want to look more closely at the nature of the transfer of the lake beds. I noted that Pita Paraone said that it was really no different from the case of Ngati Tuwharetoa and Lake Taupo and I certainly understand my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s concerns about and interests in that particular issue. This is more than just a symbolic transfer. There is actually quite a significant difference between the two situations. The Ngati Tuwharetoa situation did not require legislation; it was a matter essentially of the Maori Land Court and that was because the ownership had never been formally transferred in the way that occurred in the Te Arawa situation in the 1920s. 
The second point is that the ownership is intended to be more than merely symbolic. Certainly that is how the Ngati Tuwharetoa transfer was interpreted back then; perhaps there is some difference on that issue today. The legislation that we are presented with specifically states that Te Arawa can lease for terms of up to 35 years the lake beds. They can license—in fact in perpetuity—the use of the lake beds presumably for a fee. Mr Pita Paraone referred to the protection of existing interests both those of the Crown where there are particular interests and also those of other owners. He referred to jetties boatsheds ramps boathouses and the like. In this instance however it will be completely in the power of Te Arawa as I understand it as owners to allow people—or not as the case may be—to build jetties ramps and so forth. 
Tariana Turia 
: That’s right. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Indeed as Tariana Turia has quite rightly said that is a consequence of ownership that is intended to be more than a symbolic transfer. That is a very significant change indeed and quite different I suggest from the situation of Ngati Tuwharetoa. It is a complete reversal of the situation in the 1920s. 
I might just conclude on this particular point. In many ways and I noted this specifically some 2 years ago when these negotiations were being mooted the Te Arawa settlement was intended to forecast what would happen with the foreshore and seabed. I suggest that in some respects at least—perhaps not many—it has done so. In fact I guess the particular complaint of the Maori Party in particular is that the foreshore and seabed legislation does not mirror that of the Te Arawa case where there is a true transfer of ownership. But as many will know that has caused real controversy in the region of Rotorua. 
I conclude on this point. Lake beds riverbeds the foreshore in particular and the seabed have historically been considered part of the commons—owned by all of us all New Zealanders irrespective of race and background in common. This settlement sets a precedent whereby a large number of lakes in the North Island will now be owned by a particular group Te Arawa. I understand that it is obviously due to the historic connection but it is a revolutionary change and not one that National thinks is in the national interest. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Te manuhiri tuarangi nga kaumatua nga rangatira o Te Arawa kua tae tautoko mai i tenei ahiahi nau mai haere mai whakatau mai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To the visitors from afar to the elders and chiefs of Te Arawa who have come in support this afternoon welcome welcome alight here. 
] 
The return of the Te Arawa lakes to their rightful owners has been a very long time in coming and the Greens are pleased to see this bill finally before the House. We warmly welcome Te Arawa and their bill to Parliament. We want first to recognise the incredibly hard work by the iwi and the negotiators on their behalf who have been working through the Government’s negotiation process. It is an extremely difficult and a very costly time-consuming and often truly heart-rending process. 
It will come as no surprise to this House and probably to pretty much anyone else that the Greens have a continued and sustained objection to the Government’s Treaty claims settlement process because we believe it is fundamentally unfair to the claimants. The redress generally offered by the Government pales in comparison with other redress for other issues—let us take the West Coast forests and the Titford settlement for example. The conditions that iwi must agree to in order to gain redress for the wrongs committed in the name of this Parliament are in our opinion unconscionable. It still remains a serious problem that this Government refuses to properly inform and educate the community about the settlements as they arise thereby leaving those communities vulnerable to the Maori bashing rhetoric and antics of irresponsible political parties. I will touch on that briefly a bit later on. I just want to make clear that our criticism of settlement bills has been and will continue to be squarely directed at the Government’s framework. 
We were very impressed with the nature of the redress in this bill and we fully support the return of the ownership of the lake beds to Te Arawa. We also fully support Te Arawa having a strong regulatory role over the lakes. I know it is not as strong as perhaps some people would have preferred. The fact is that there remain in our law opportunities for councils to delegate regulatory functions to iwi and hapu organisations but not once I understand have those provisions ever been used to enable hapu and iwi to exercise those functions at a local level. I refer to things like being able to approve or not approve resource consents. It is the failure to use those mechanisms that causes major problems where hapu and iwi have responsibilities as mana whenua in the area and could well take on those obligations but councils refuse to allow that. We are very pleased to see in this bill at least some attempt to allow that. 
For example consents will be required from Te Arawa for the construction of new structures on the seabed. They can charge for the occupation of that space and also regulate and manage new types of commercial activities on the lake beds. We think that those are very good provisions and at least are a small start. 
This bill demonstrates that the rights of other users can be catered for where title and ownership are shifted back to the rightful owners. In this case public access to the lakes is guaranteed. Recreational activities like swimming and picnics remain open to all members of the public. 
We were horrified that just a few years ago particularly around 2004 the settlement of the claim regarding these lakes was used as a political football by the National Party to drum up opposition to Maori. That followed on from Don Brash’s racist speech and occurred on the back of the foreshore and seabed issue. We considered that attack on Te Arawa showed just how deeply frightened Don Brash and the National Party were that Maori would have any kind of decision making over anything including their own property—like the lakes. In one interview when referring to the possibility that people may have to get permission from Te Arawa to put up a jetty in the lakes Don Brash said: “It seems to me that that opens the way to all kinds of blackmail and extortion.” The Greens consider that comment to be absolutely disgusting. It shows just how much contempt Don Brash holds for Maori in this country. 
But let us not forget given the provisions of this bill that the recognition of title and the capacity for management over these kinds of areas does not interfere with public rights as described by the Government. Surely the Government can only reflect on its own shameful and what I consider abusive behaviour in promoting and passing the foreshore and seabed legislation. 
We fully support the return of the lakes to Te Arawa and we expect that these old new rightful owners will be able to provide the necessary will that should see the eventual cleaning up and restoration of the lakes. Those lakes are incredibly precious and beautiful and of extraordinary ecological and spiritual importance to everybody. But they are dying and they are dying as a result of the pollution caused by human activity over the last 80 years when the lakes have been out of the hands of their hapu. Leakage from septic tanks is a classic example. It has caused enormous problems. The deforestation of the surrounding areas which are pumice soils has caused continuing problems and there remains the very serious issue of pollution from farm runoff which is causing nutrient loading in the lakes. Much of the soil water contributes to nutrient loading and it can take up to 30 years for the nutrients on the land to make their way down into the water itself. That means that the damage from 30 years ago will take many more years before it comes to fruition. It also means that there is an absolutely desperate need for urgent action now. 
The hapu and iwi—Te Arawa—are committed to taking that action. When I met with Te Arawa about the bill I was really pleased to hear about the plans to restore the wetlands around the lakes. That is just one example of action. The wetlands are incredible ecosystems and many have been lost in New Zealand because they were drained for farmland which then caused the nutrient problems. Wetlands are highly sensitive. They are key indicators of the health of an area as well as key indicators of climate change and they operate as a critical protection mechanism for lakes and other waterways. So hearing that from Te Arawa reminds us that hapu and iwi have a huge capacity to manage areas of ecological importance outside and separate from the Government structures that are in place but have failed to do that so far. We have incredible faith and belief that hapu and iwi structures are capable of doing that work and are committed to doing it long term. 
During the select committee process we will hear from other mana whenua and hapu from around the area who are unhappy about the settlement. We welcome those views and submissions because it is only by hearing about those stories those concerns and the failures of the process that we can really establish systems to address them. I know it can be very difficult for the claimant groups to hear the issues being relitigated but it is still important to have all of those issues heard. I certainly look forward to hearing both from Te Arawa and from those hapu at the select committee. The Greens thank and welcome Te Arawa for all the work they have done so far. Kia ora. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Otira Te Arawa waka Te Arawa tangata tena koutou tena koutou nau mai haere mai. Ehara ma te potiki e tu ki te whakatau atu i a koutou koira hoki e mihi au ki taku hoa rangatira no Te Ropu Torangapu o Aotearoa Tuatahi nana koutou i whakatau. No reira e Pita tena koe. Otira kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Indeed to you the canoe and people of Te Arawa greetings to you greetings to you welcome welcome. It is not for the youngest to stand and welcome you here and that is why I acknowledge my chiefly colleague from New Zealand First who did that. So thank you Pita and greetings to us all. 
] 
It probably comes as no surprise to the House that I stand to support the legislation. I am quite disappointed with some of the remarks that have been made in the House particularly in relation to the history of the Te Arawa lakes and their confiscation but I will address some of those matters throughout the duration of my speech. 
These claims relate to the 14 lakes that were the subject of the 1922 agreement between Te Arawa and the Crown. The lakes were: Ngahewa Ngapouri Okareka Ngakaro Okataina Rerewhakaaitu Rotoehu Rotoiti Rotoma Rotomahana Rotorua Tarawera Tikitapu and Tutaeinanga. Te Arawa are here in the House today and I acknowledge their presence here. I do not know what it is that Opposition members do not understand about the history of Te Arawa but surely their presence here today would totally rule out the statements made by National’s deputy leader Gerry Brownlee. In fact the transfer of the Te Arawa lakes from Te Arawa to the Crown was not a willing arrangement. Te Arawa were not willing participants in that arrangement and they are here today to make that clear to the House. 
The importance of the lakes to Te Arawa cannot be underestimated. Perhaps the only way to illustrate that in contemporary times is to compare them to the importance that every Greek citizen places on the Parthenon a Sherpa places on Mount Everest and the indigenous people of Australia place on Ayers Rock. As indigenous peoples we all have our iconic landmarks with which we have a spiritual and an ancestral association and for Te Arawa that association manifests itself in the lakes. The significance of this bill is that it ensures that the ownership of the lake beds returns to Te Arawa. As well as that seats on the committee that manages the day-to-day affairs of the lakes will be set aside for Te Arawa representatives. As the previous speaker from the Green Party made very clear to the House Te Arawa will have the opportunity to exercise their ownership rights over the lakes on that committee. They will have a legal voice at the table for the first time in many decades. The leverage of lake bed ownership and the property rights that flow from that mean they will be a very very significant economic voice in Rotorua and indeed Te Arawa whanui. 
 By way of background comment I say that for centuries the lakes provided a lifeline for Te Arawa. They were a food basket a shelter and a highway. Much blood and many tears have been spilt over time. From the hinterland to the shores of the lakes the stories of a proud people are etched in every nook every bay every outcrop every sandbank and every rocky reef even to the depths of the lakes. In some lakes sadly lie the koiwi of many of our tupuna whose lives were tragically lost as a result of the Tarawera eruption and of intertribal encounters. Many hapu and iwi of Te Arawa have relied on and cared for the lakes over generations. Over time the lakes have become important to the people of the Rotorua district and to the nation as a whole. The lakes are a jewel in the crown for the tourism industry in Te Arawa and Te Arawa themselves have played a major part in its development. The return of the lake beds to Te Arawa embodies the meaning of the Crown local government and Te Arawa working together for the preservation of the lakes and the betterment of the nation. 
The bill also contains an apology from the Crown to Te Arawa. The acknowledgment of the injustices suffered by Te Arawa is long overdue. The Crown failed to honour its commitments to them. I commend this Government for introducing a bill to this House that contains a formal Crown apology to Te Arawa their tupuna and their descendants for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged by the Crown. In its most traditional sense there is no word for “sorry” particularly when we compare an apology in English with how we would do it in our own language. So what purpose does the apology serve? It is of course given for the benefit of the Crown so that it can somehow wash its hands of how it treated an honourable and a noble people. It is penance or self-atonement. Ina ra kei te Kaihautu kua puta te reo tapae ripeneta a te Karauna ki a Te Arawa mo ana he mo ana hara ki a Te Arawa ano kia tu watea te Karauna kia rite te kukupa te harakore kia ma te hukarere. 
[ 
Madam Assistant Speaker the Crown has made its penance to Te Arawa itself for its wrongdoings and injustices in the past to clear the way for an impartial settlement. 
] 
In my own language I have put in a more appropriate way an apology from the Crown to Te Arawa. 
Notwithstanding that some extreme views in opposition to the proposal to return the lakes to Te Arawa have been expressed by some members of the Rotorua community—and by the wider Bay of Plenty community. However Te Arawa are here today. They have taken a lot of criticism during the negotiation process but they are determined to see the settlement of this longstanding grievance and to move on. They are seeking justice and I believe justice has been partially served here today. 
But I am sickened by the way that the media have given what I would call the red-necked communities of our country the opportunity to promote their vile agendas. Not only in this case but in many other cases we have heard from claimant groups around the country about the issues they have had to deal with and the complications they have had to confront in relation to their claims. The media have chosen not to put their stories forward but instead to promote the views of those who have opposed them. That is a sad indictment on our communities and on our country. There is no grey area here. The Crown confiscated the lakes from Te Arawa. There is no grey area; it is quite clear. The confiscation was wrong in 1922 and the people charged with dispossessing Te Arawa of their lakes knew that but it is my sincerest hope that Te Arawa accept the Crown’s apology. It will be unreserved and it will remove the deep-seated shame that some members of continuing Governments have had to bear over the decades. 
I am saddened by the position that the elected member for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell has chosen to take in relation to this settlement. We know that those who criticise the settlement are ignorant whether intentionally or otherwise but they are a minority. In response to Gerry Brownlee’s statements to this House I say that the  
Hansard 
 records will confirm that Te Arawa was forced into accepting an annuity in return for the loss of the lakes. The Government of the day presented Te Arawa with a “take it or leave it” deal. Even though they chose to take it they were never willing participants in the transaction. Therefore for them the deal was never full and final. Just a few years later and to the credit of Te Arawa they donated an entire annuity to the Government’s war effort—an effort that saw them lose many of their young men. The price of citizenship has been very high for Te Arawa. 
Full and final reparation can never be made to Te Arawa yet they are here today in this House. They are prepared to let bygones be bygones in an effort to move forward and to take current and future generations with them. The descendants or the morehu here today bear witness to the writing of the final chapter of a book that will restore to them perhaps a sense of redemption at last. The bill acknowledges that Te Arawa have endured an arduous struggle in the pursuit of their claims for redress and compensation from the Crown. 
I join with my colleague the Hon Mark Burton in commending the Te Arawa negotiators whose commitment and passion have enabled us to reach this stage of the settlement process. I also congratulate and thank the representatives of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board for their commitment to the process. I say that while this grievance passes into history another Te Arawa icon will also pass into history—that is the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. It will be renewed as the Te Arawa Lakes Trust and that is a clear commitment to Te Arawa moving forward. 
I want the general public to acknowledge the decades of missed opportunities that the dispossession of the lakes has brought to Te Arawa. They were forced to stand back and watch as others developed the lakes and prospered. That prosperity was founded largely upon Te Arawa’s dispossession. This settlement is an important milestone for Te Arawa and for the Crown. The settlement redress will provide for Te Arawa the resources to assist in developing their economic and social well-being. 
 But I also want to reiterate that the settlement pertains only to Te Arawa’s interest in the lakes. Other negotiations currently in the pipeline will see other historical claims of Te Arawa settled and come to an end. Te Arawa in the future will be a powerful economic force in Rotorua and in the Bay of Plenty. Indeed like many groups who have entered into settlements they will be an economic force in this country and be recognised for that. 
So with that wave of your finger Madam Assistant Speaker I congratulate again the negotiators of Te Arawa and the people of Te Arawa who have come a very very long way to witness this historic step in the settlement of their longstanding grievance. Hoi ano kia ora tatou. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. Kai te Whare tena koutou. Te Arawa Waka Te Arawa tangata tena koutou katoa. Nau mai haere mai e kawe nei te kaupapa nei ki roto i tenei Whare. Whakapiri mai. I o koutou mate kia tu honohono a tatou mate i tenei rangi a haere nga mate. A ko te mea nui kua tae pai mai koutou. Nau mai haere mai ra. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker and to those of you in the House. To the canoe and the people of Te Arawa greetings to you all. Welcome to you who bring this matter into this House. Draw closer. In respect of your deaths that bond with our ones today I say farewell the dead. And in respect of you the main thing is that you have arrived here safely so welcome welcome indeed. 
] 
The Maori Party stands today with a heavy heart. We honour the presence of Te Arawa here today and we think of those who are with them but are not physically present. We think of those who have passed on who were negotiating with the Crown over the future of the lakes some 80 years ago. We remember our tipuna who secured Lake Okataina and the surrounding Ngati Tarawhai lands as a scenic reserve in 1921. Let the record never erase from memory those who also passionately objected to the Te Arawa Lakes settlement negotiation of 1922. 
Te Arawa have been here before. They stood strong at Hirangi to denounce the fiscal envelope of those days. Our hearts go to all the kuia and koroua who in telling their stories unearthed a lifetime of sorrow the heart-wrenching stories that were gifted to the record of time. They have worked painstakingly for their people agonising over hours of hearings and volumes of words for the benefit of the tribe. 
We know with absolute certainty that those who have travelled here today want to settle as a mark of respect for so many of their people who have passed on without seeing this matter dealt with. Their member of Parliament Te Ururoa Flavell is today representing this Parliament at a gathering in Kenya. His heart aching for his people—for their stories and their mamae. His presence is also very much here today and he will look forward to contributing to this debate at subsequent readings. 
He shared with us the decades of grief for the degradation and destruction of Te Arawa’s taonga. Minister Burton today acknowledged the savage depletion of the fish life upon which Te Arawa relied. He talked of the senseless acts of prosecution of Te Arawa for fishing in their own moana. He talked of the holding back of survey maps and plans that would have enabled Te Arawa to prepare for their claim. He talked of the devastation of their wetlands reducing everything to one tap in the village. But will this putea pay for those things? That is why we are here today. 
We know of Te Arawa’s love and longing for the lands for the lakes and for the lives of their tipuna; and of the offence against Te Arawa’s tino rangatiratanga over the lakes and the usage of the resources of the lakes. In 1996 tangata whenua rejected unanimously the Crown’s offer of a $1 billion fiscal envelope to settle all claims as a full and final settlement of historic grievances. All the marae of the motu did that. But as successive Governments came and went the policy remained in place. 
The settlement process started with a bang but not much buck to show for it—$170 million respectively for Tainui for Ngai Tahu and for the Sealord’s fisheries. That $170 million became the standard for everybody else. It was a random figure with no rationale other than affordability. The House needs to recall that not one person has ever even suggested these settlements are anywhere near what a true and accurate response should have been. Indeed Professor Margaret Mutu has suggested that the Tainui people had to accept .01 percent of the real value of their claim—$170 million—while the claim was estimated at $1192 billion. For Ngai Tahu the figure was 0.4 percent of the real value. 
More recently redress amounts have been established pitting iwi against iwi hapu against hapu. Nowhere is this more apparent than amongst Te Arawa—and it is sad—where serious divisions have occurred between and amongst whanau hapu and iwi throughout the confederation. The process is a recipe for division—divide and rule and conquer. We have heard how some tribes are not mentioned in some of the three settlements yet mentioned in others. 
We are also aware of the urgent inquiry currently before Judge Wickliffe on behalf of Ngati Whaoa specifically for three of the 13 lakes enshrined in this legislation and for the 14th lake which has been omitted from this bill. How can Government go to settlement when there are still outstanding issues with regard to lakes in front of the tribunal? 
 Ngati Whaoa have told us that they were never represented by the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board in the legislation of 1922 or 1955. By this process the people of Te Arawa are being forced to face three different settlements with three different governance and management bodies with three different sets of costs. The fisheries settlement the kaihautu agreement in principle and the lakes settlement deed are the objects of today’s hui. With each new negotiation the amount reduces leaving a mere $2.7 million in cash for financial redress and $7.3 million for annuity redress. Ko te patai is that all a glittering jewel in this nation’s wealth is worth? The bill itself acknowledges this: “It is not possible to compensate Te Arawa fully for that loss”. It is in the bill. 
Te Arawa Lakes Trust is a group formed from Environment Bay of Plenty and the Rotorua District Council with just two places reserved for mana whenua Te Arawa? Where is the rangatiratanga in that? Mana or control over the lakes is thereby again subject to the whims of Government constructs.  
The matter of water has not even been mentioned or addressed. Nor is there sufficient recognition of the pollution and degradation of Te Arawa’s taonga. We understand that the estimated amount required to remedy the contamination inflicted on their moana by successive local authorities and Government regimes totals over $200 million. Where are the resources to clean up the lakes? Will the next Budget make the appropriation to restore the lakes to their positive condition? I think not. The last Budget never even had the word “Maori” in it.  
It is for these reasons and more that the Maori Party will not vote on this Government bill. We will not vote against Te Arawa; we will not vote. There is not enough compensation. The process has divided Te Arawa and it is all one-sided. We say to the people of Te Arawa that we respect their right to make decisions and respect the rangatiratanga of those who are gathered here today. We will not vote against them. But it is our sober task that we must never resile from a responsibility to bring to account the wrongful confiscation and theft of tangata whenua territories—the crimes against our people. We will not forget. We of the Maori Party appeal to members of this House—all of whom would want justice for themselves and theirs—to consider whether this settlement is a just settlement and whether their ancestors and descendants would see justice being played out today.  
With our first opportunity to speak on Treaty settlements in this House we in the Maori Party do not see this or any previous settlements as indications of the application of justice. Because of the seriousness and the breadth of our people’s concerns made clear to us through our electorates the Maori Party is considering a call for all Treaty settlements to be suspended until there has been a full review of the Treaty settlement process. Because of that we are writing to all hapu iwi and claimant groups to ask them to consider some of the concerns that have been sent to us by the people. 
Na reira Te Arawa tena koutou. Tena koutou i puku kaha te kokiri i to koutou tono ki te whanako ara ki te Karauna kia hoki tika mai te mana me ona rawa ki a koutou. Tena koutou i hoe mai i o koutou waka i runga i nga roimata o te aroha mai i nga wa kainga tae noa ki te ana o te raiona. Ko tenei tu he tu kia werohia te Kawanatanga kia whakatika ai i nga kereme katoa. Ko ta matou e pouri nei ko ta matou mohio i te mutunga ake kei a ratou te korero whakamutunga. Kei te ki ko enei ko ena ranei nga taonga ka whakahokia a me nga rawa hoki ka whangaihia atu ki a koutou. Na reira Te Arawa kei te tangi. Kei te tangi matou. Matou nga tonotono a te iwi. Matou nga mema a te Pati Maori. Matou nga uri o Te Arawa o Kahungunu o Ngapuhi o te Whanga-nui-a-Tara nei ra. No reira huri noa tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Kei raro Madam Assistant Speaker. 
[ 
And so greetings to you Te Arawa. Greetings to you who worked strenuously to initiate your claim to the thief the Crown for the return of the authority and its properties to you directly. Greetings to you who paddled your canoes from your homes to the lions’ den here with tears of love. This stance of mine is to challenge the Government to rectify all claims. What saddens us greatly is that at the end of it all they have the final say. We over here are saying: are those taonga really the ones that will be returned to you and the benefits that will be fed to you? And so Te Arawa we are grieving. We the representatives of the people of the Maori Party and as descendants of Te Arawa Kahungunu Ngapuhi and of Wellington here are mourning. And so greetings to you all throughout the House. I end here Madam Assistant Speaker. 
] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
:  
I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. Today for Te Arawa we start the final legislative journey of work that I believe began in 1987 when the claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal. Ten years later the lakes claim was separated out from other aspects of the claim and 3 years later the terms of the negotiations were signed off. They were signed off again a couple of years later. 
I would like to welcome those who have come from Te Arawa to witness the beginning of this legislative journey. I am from Whakatane and I am someone who has regularly enjoyed the Te Arawa lakes on family holidays particularly Rotoma and Rotorua and I have also enjoyed being part of outdoor education programmes with school children and youth groups on the shores of Okataina. I also understand the importance of some sacred sites that are scattered around the shores of Okataina. I recently enjoyed the opening of an Environment Bay of Plenty initiative at Lake Rerewhakaaitu and I came to appreciate watching what had happened there and realised the importance of guardianship of these wonderful treasures. 
I am taking only a brief call on this bill. United Future does not have a representative on the select committee that will be considering this bill. We will be relying heavily on the commentary from the committee to guide our ongoing support. We do support the Waitangi settlement process; however we believe that resourcing could easily be stepped up to avoid hapu and iwi having to wait unreasonable lengths of time for settlements to be reached. 
 I think it is important—as I finish—that we remember those who have been part of this journey but who have not lived long enough to see this day arrive. We must honour the work they have done and we congratulate those who have continued to carry the baton on this important project. I thank those people for their attendance here today. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou te whanau o Te Arawa. It is wonderful to have Te Arawa here today to share this occasion with us. As the member for Rotorua I say that these are truly memorable moments in our historical journey together. As a contemporary Pakeha player in the unique environment of Rotorua I am proud to follow on from the Hon Paul East who showed an understanding of the Treaty settlement process. This process has moved smoothly and I remember attending a meeting that started the process for me. Bishop Manu Bennett was there helping us understand the historical account with Anaru Rangiheuea former Mayor Grahame Hall Trevor Maxwell Mita Ririnui and Don Stafford telling our wonderful story and putting it right for the record. 
Margaret Wilson was at that historic meeting and that is where we began putting this settlement back on track. I would like to acknowledge Margaret Wilson for the work she did. I also acknowledge the leadership of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. It has been very staunch through this process patient and long-suffering and it has had to put up with some misunderstandings in our own community at home about what this settlement was trying to achieve. I congratulate the leadership of the Rotorua District Council—and Mayor Kevin Winters is with us today. He is also supported by Trevor Maxwell and Mauriora Kingi. It is just fantastic to see these people coming with our waka down here to our Whare today. 
The Pakeha in the Rotorua community only ever sought access to the waters of iconic lakes and if they were confident of the leadership of Rotorua to make sure that that access was enshrined they went away and let the negotiators get on with the process. That mandated leadership of the Rotorua District Council working with the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board gave our people confidence that this process was moving along and that was what was required. I thank Mark Burton for picking this bill up now and I thank this Government for reprioritising the Treaty settlement process because this settlement certainly needed to get on track as a high priority. I say “Well done!” to my colleague Mita Ririnui for holding the negotiation process together holding a candle under the process and keeping it going in the right direction. 
One of the things I enjoyed seeing was our kaumatua of Te Arawa working with our younger negotiators—and David Tapsell is up in the gallery today. He is only one of the negotiators but his father Sir Peter Tapsell would be proud of him to know that he is helping us with his skills to work on this negotiated settlement. We know our lakes are iconic. In the words of Bishop Manu Bennett—and Auntie Kaa is up in the gallery today—he would never bless objects without the people present understanding their responsibility with regard to them and we are all here today. We are two people walking one pathway tatou tatou. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I begin my speech this afternoon by acknowledging the great and noble confederation of iwi and hapu of Te Arawa and to welcome their representatives to our House. I also acknowledge the presence of their advisers including my good friends and former colleagues Paul Radich and Jessica Hodgson who are now lawyers in Izard Weston. They spent many hours in the period leading up to the deed of settlement being signed working with David Tapsell and others in Te Arawa to ensure that the deed of settlement could be signed on 18 December 2004. I also acknowledge my old friend David Tapsell with whom I worked in two law firms most recently at Bell Gully and I acknowledge his father Peter Tapsell who as we all know was a great member of this House and a very wise and just Speaker. 
Settlements between the Crown and iwi can be great occasions in the life of our country. I said in my maiden speech that for me 21 November 1997 was the proudest moment of my legal career when as one of the team who had worked for Ngai Tahu for many years against the Crown I went to Kaikoura and witnessed Sir Tipene O’Regan and the former Prime Minister Jim Bolger sign the deed of settlement. Because of the excellent work done by Georgina te Heuheu and others in this House in 1998 the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act was passed towards the end of that year. So Treaty settlements can be a great occasion as I have said in the life of the country. To quote the words of Isaiah they can undo many of the heavy burdens of the past and enable our peoples to look to the future with confidence and optimism. 
So as a legislator it is with a very heavy heart that I am required to stand in this House today and express my grave concerns about this legislation because quite frankly I think Te Arawa have been let down. I particularly want to focus on clauses 7 and 9 of the bill to illustrate just what I am talking about. 
The first point is that I do not believe that acknowledgments and apologies should be contained in legislation. One of the reasons for that is illustrated by a member’s bill under the name of one of the New Zealand First members—and I think it is Mr Peters himself—which seeks to delete all references to the Treaty and references to the principles of the Treaty from legislation. So if that bill was passed we should think of what that would do to clauses 7 and 9 of this legislation. The best way of dealing with apologies is to have them contained in deeds as separate documents but not to incorporate them in legislation. 
 The second point—and it is a fundamental point and time and time again it has been said to members of this House and I will say it again—is that this legislation contains in clauses 7 and 9 vague and formulaic references to the Treaty which as I said I believe are insulting and have the same tone of sincerity as MPs withdrawing and apologising in this House. Let me refer to subclause (2) of clause 7. There the Crown acknowledges various things and says that it was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. But what principles? Subclause (4) of clause 7 acknowledges— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Protection. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —I will come to that—that it failed to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa as part of its 1992 agreement as a result of inflation and was a breach of the Treaty and its principles. If it is active protection we are talking about why is that not explicitly stated in the bill? Then there is clause 9 which states: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to Te Arawa for the breaches of te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and its principles acknowledged above.” What does that mean? Select committees cannot amend apologies; apologies come from the Crown. This bill should be withdrawn by the Government and tidied up because these are fundamental errors. If one is going to refer to principles of the Treaty one should state exactly which principles one is referring to. 
In general terms there are about nine key or central principles that have been extracted over the years from various cases and reports of the Waitangi Tribunal. The first is that the Crown has an obligation to actively protect Maori interests. One of the Labour members interjected and said: “Oh that’s what this is about.” Well the legislation should say so. The second one is that Crown and Maori have mutual obligations to act reasonably and in good faith. The third one is that the Treaty has to be adapted to modern rapidly changing circumstances. The fourth one is that there is a principle of mutual benefit that should be applied. The fifth is that the Treaty has a basic object of two peoples living together in one country and this concept lays the foundation for the principle of partnership. The sixth is that the Crown has guaranteed rangatiratanga to all iwi and that includes the implicit guarantee that the Crown would not allow one iwi an unfair advantage over another. The seventh is that the Crown has an obligation to recognise rangatiratanga. 
There is an eighth principle and it has not been picked up in many of the commentaries over the years but it arises out of a case concerning the Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board and the Department of Conservation—a case I was involved in for Whale Watch Kaikoura. We succeeded in persuading the Crown that section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 meant that Ngai Tahu should have a reasonable degree of preference when it came to the operation of Whale Watch Kaikoura vis-à-vis others who might seek to enter that particular operation off Kaikoura. 
So it is not too hard to spell out what exactly one is talking about when one refers to the principles of the Treaty. This is yet another example of lazy drafting and poor workmanship by this Government. And it is worse than that as I said because of the sloppiness of it and because of the inadequacy of it—it has all the hallmarks of insincerity which only the Crown is capable of showing. 
My next point refers to what the Law Commission said in its publication  
Maori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law 
. It referred to a submission that the Law Commission had made to the Health Committee on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill 2000 which urged Parliament as far as possible to provide the courts with guidance as to its precise intention when referring to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. Of course there the Law Commission was referring to clauses such as section 4 of the Conservation Act or section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. But I think the same point needs to be made if the Crown is going to include Treaty of Waitangi references in legislation. 
I really do believe these are quite fundamental points I have endeavoured to raise in relation to acknowledgments and apologies contained in this legislation. I do not believe they are capable of being cured by a select committee; the select committee cannot tinker with apologies. The proper thing for the Crown to do is to withdraw this legislation and do a better job because I think the people of Te Arawa deserve better than this very B grade effort. I also think these concerns I have raised echo what my friend Dr Pita Sharples has said—that given all these problems with the Treaty settlement process it certainly would not hurt to take stock and see where we are going because this is a poor effort and these good people have travelled a long way for not very much at all. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I will be speaking in Maori and I will do my own translation. Ki a te Whare tena tatou katoa. E oku kaumatua koutou kua puta mai nei mai i era harotoroto o tatou i roto i te rohe o Waiariki tenei ahau te whakamihi atu ki a koutou nau mai piki mai kake mai haere mai. 
[ 
To the House greetings to us all. To my elders those of you who have appeared here from those lakes of ours in the Waiariki region I extend greetings to you welcome welcome aboard welcome. 
] 
I welcome the elders and leaders of the Arawa confederation who have come to Parliament today. Ahau e tu ana ki te tautoko i nga mahi kua horahia i nga kupu kua whakaarongia i roto i te pire ka whakatakotongia i tenei ra. Mehemea e kite ana etahi wahanga kahore e rite tonu ana ki o koutou whakaaro he aha oti te raruraru kia wharikitia ki konei tahi ka haria ki te Komiti Uiui hei kona koutou whakapuaki i o koutou whakaaro. 
[ 
I stand to support what has been stated and outlined in the bill presented today. If there are parts that differ from one’s point of view no harm is done by expressing them here and having them referred to the committee for further debate. 
] 
I stand to support the first reading of this bill. I note that it will be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee where there will be an opportunity for people to make further submissions and indeed refinements. 
Ka nui taku pouri ki te rongo atu i nga korero e horahia ana i roto i to tatou Whare i tenei ra. Ahau nei mehemea ko te kaupapa nei kua oti i a koutou nga kaikorero i whakaritea hei kawe i nga reo o Te Arawa i waenga tonu i a koutou me nga mangai o te Karauna me waiho ko te whakamutunga me te hanganga o tenei kaupapa i waenga tonu i a kourua nahea ano. Ko te Karauna me nga kaikorero o roto i Te Arawa. Me kaua tetahi atu te poka noa ki te whakawehewehe i nga korero waenga tonu i a kourua. 
I also note that others are unwilling to support the progress of this bill. I think that is a shame. It overlooks the fact that there has been a set of discussions—a negotiation between nominated speakers of the Arawa people and representatives of the Crown. It is not fitting that any member of this House should seek to disturb undermine or fracture that which belongs between those two Treaty partners. 
Ahau e whakamihi ana hoki ki a koutou. Ko te tamoko o Te Arawa ka whakapumautia ki te takere o nga harotoroto e korerongia ake nei. Ko wai ka hua ko wai ka tohu a e nga ra e takoto tata ake nei. E hia ranei te putea pehea ana ranei te whakahaere o nga taonga nei. Otira ko te taonga motuhake kua taka ki roto i te kapu o o koutou ringaringa hei whiriwhiri hei whakahaere i era korero. Kaua rawa ko matou nga mema o te Whare Paremata engari me whakawhiwhi atu ki a koutou nga uri o o tatou tupuna no ratou era taonga i te tuatahi. 
[ 
I congratulate you once again. The insignia of the Arawa people will be indelibly laid upon the beds of the lakes mentioned. Who will benefit or where will it lead to in future? What will the revenue be how will these treasures be administered especially the one that has come into your hands? Who will determine and run those discussions? Those determinations are for you the descendants of our ancestors who owned the treasures in the first place. It is not for us members of Parliament House. 
] 
Although it may be said and complained that a better line of revenue could have been associated with the transfer of the lakes the moko of the Arawa people will be indelibly laid upon the beds of the lakes. Te Arawa will have the opportunity to ensure that their vision and aspirations regarding the development and usage of the lakes rest firmly with them and not with a single member of this Parliament. 
Koia taku e te Arawa e tautoko ana me te mohio ko te katoa o nga tumanako e kore rawa e ea. Otira ko koutou ko ahau ko wai atu ranei kei tena reanga ma ratou e kapo i te mea taea e ratou. Ko wai ranei kua hua ko wai ranei ka tohu hei roto i te wa o o tatou mokopuna te roanga atu o nga korero. 
[ 
Therefore Te Arawa I support this bill knowing that all that you had hoped for will not be fulfilled. Indeed it is for you for me for whoever else or for that generation to seize upon what is possible for them. Who will benefit or where it will lead to in the future is in the hands of our grandchildren. 
] 
Therefore I stand and support this bill. Who can tell how matters will finally end up in the days of our mokopuna and our uri? Each generation must make a decision and seize upon that which it believes is the best that can be achieved at a given point in time. Tautoko ana au i te pire. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
I support the bill. Greetings to us all.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a first time. 
Haka 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee 
 and that the Committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 August 2006. 
Motion agreed to. 
Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee. I also intend to instruct that the committee presents its report to the House on or before 31 July 2006. 
This bill has been prepared as part of the work undertaken by this Government on developing the New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Action Plan. The principal purpose of the bill is to ensure that adequate statutory powers are available to the Crown to properly respond to and manage a major public health emergency such as the threat or actual outbreak of a highly infectious disease whether occurring in New Zealand or overseas. The primary amendments in the bill are to the Health Act. The amendments clarify modernise and where necessary close gaps in the law relating to public health emergencies and quarantine powers. The current provisions are old and were made in the days when ship travel was the most common way in which people arrived in New Zealand. The amendments will ensure that the Act is more responsive to current epidemic and pandemic influenza scenarios. 
In particular the bill adds pandemic influenza to the list of quarantinable diseases contained in the Health Act. This will ensure that quarantine powers can be exercised in relation to pandemic influenza as well as the existing quarantinable diseases of typhoid yellow fever and plague. The bill provides an Order in Council mechanism to quickly add new highly infectious diseases to the list should they emerge. 
The bill modernises the quarantine provisions for aircraft arrivals as current provisions focus more on ship arrivals. It modernises the language used in the emergency power provisions in the Health Act from the time when for example billiard halls and reading rooms were common places where the public would gather. It relaxes emergency provisions to close public places so they may remain open if certain protective and preventive measures are put in place. That could mean for example that essential services such as supermarkets can remain open hence preventing pandemonium. The bill provides for the examination and testing of people arriving in New Zealand who are liable to quarantine as part of triaging based on risk. It updates medical surveillance provisions for people who may be at risk of having or spreading a quarantinable disease and provides for surveillance at large. 
The bill updates emergency requisition powers such as widening the use of premises to accommodate sick people if hospitals are overflowing. Further it provides for the development and implementation of a policy to prioritise scarce medical supplies such as antivirals and any future vaccines in an emergency and to protect health workers and others following the policy. It gives the New Zealand Police enforcement powers to assist statutory medical officers of health in the exercise of their emergency powers in the unlikely event of resistance. Further it enables statutory medical officers of health to redirect aircraft that have landed in New Zealand to another place in New Zealand if that is considered necessary in order to deal with a disease scenario more effectively. It adds a provision to relax certain statutory requirements and restrictions on enactments administered by the Ministry of Health if authorised by an epidemic notice issued by the Prime Minister. For example it will provide the ability to allow competent people to administer vaccinations who may not currently work in a scope of practice that allows them to do that. 
The bill also amends a number of other enactments dealing with matters that may be disrupted by or may need to deal specifically with the consequences of an epidemic. These amendments can be triggered only if an epidemic notice is in force. They include the following: allowing nurses to sign death certificates in certain circumstances if doctors are in short supply; allowing employers to reduce the notice period when requiring employees to take annual leave; allowing overseas people to stay longer in New Zealand if they cannot return to their own countries; provisions to manage parole community service home detention and remand issues; the ability to provide reasonable and necessary relief from compliance with statutory duties where impossible or impracticable to comply; and some minor administrative amendments relating to student loans tax and social security emergency payments. 
Some of the provisions in the bill do require a lesser priority on individual rights than is appropriate in times of non-emergency. That is justified by the need to ensure that members of the community in general are protected from those who may be suffering from a highly infectious disease but who may not necessarily comply voluntarily with normal disease control mechanisms. I am sure everyone in Parliament agrees that New Zealanders should where reasonably possible be protected from unnecessary infection by a lethal pandemic disease and that we must collectively ensure this protection. The Government would wish to see the bill enacted by August 2006 and I commend it to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition will support the progress of the bill to the Government Administration Committee. I wonder whether the Minister Clayton Cosgrove indicated a time frame for consideration. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yes. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are also prepared to support that on the understanding that if extra time is needed then the Minister and the Business Committee will facilitate that. 
Protecting human health is at the crux of New Zealand’s pandemic preparedness. If we fail to protect our people’s health we are also likely to fail in our secondary goals of maintaining social cohesion and seeking to mitigate the economic and social consequences of the pandemic. When pandemic strains emerge they sweep through communities and nations with frightening velocity. The three pandemics we saw in the past century circled the globe and in many communities they had spread through the human population within months. 
The concentrated mortality of a pandemic can be shocking. The 1918 pandemic for example killed more people in 6 months than who died in the last 25 years from AIDS and more than were killed in World War I. So the effects of a pandemic are indeed very serious for our country. The primary strategy of the Government and of Parliament has to be to protect human health by seeking to prevent the emergence of any strain of pandemic and if possible to contain any human outbreak at its source if that emergence does occur. 
The National Party has taken a particular interest in pandemic planning in New Zealand since it identified that the Government had prepared a priority list for Tamiflu that the Minister of Health knew nothing about—other than the fact that he was on it. I think we have demonstrated in the last few months the perfect role of a vigorous and informed Opposition party. It has been National’s raising various issues in pandemic planning that has basically forced the Government’s hand and actually got it to a position where the Minister of Health said on television that he lies awake at night worried about the pandemic. I suspect that it might be Tony Ryall’s questions that keep him awake at night. The Opposition has raised the issues in pandemic planning and we have highlighted the inefficiencies and ineffectualness of the Government’s early responses and the Government has responded to the agenda we have set. But today I also want to identify to the Government the new areas that its work must now move on to. 
 In the last 24 hours President Bush unveiled a $7.1 billion plan to prepare for a flu pandemic in the United States. It involves improving vaccines stockpiling antiviral drugs and changing and enforcing rules involving the United States. That is an investment that New Zealand should welcome. The President is investing $2.8 billion in what he calls a “crash program” to accelerate the development of new technology to speed up vaccine makers’ ability to produce enough vaccine to protect people in that country. The benefit of that investment will be felt here in New Zealand. 
Darren Hughes 
: Vote for President Bush! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We might have to get Judith Collins to come and deal with that member. 
It is vital to recognise that protecting human health during a pandemic will require a number of things. It will require strong domestic and international surveillance good identification testing the rapid development and production of health interventions targeted use of antivirals community infection control measures effective understanding of risk reduction strategies and the full involvement of the public and private sectors. 
The United States’ pandemic plan which was released in the last 24 hours addressed the most gaping hole in this Government’s pandemic preparedness. From the very beginning I have asked the Government what the plan is to get medical treatment to people who are sick in their homes. The Health Committee asked the Government the same question because that is where most people will be during a pandemic. Most people will be at home. President Bush’s pandemic plan—the American strategy—basically addressed that issue. We have not done so in New Zealand. 
The Americans are saying: “Given that most persons with pandemic influenza will experience typical influenza symptoms most persons who seek care can be managed appropriately by [non-hospital] providers using a home-based approach. Appropriate management of … pandemic influenza cases may reduce the risk of progression to severe disease and thereby reduce demand for inpatient care. A system of effective home-based care would decrease the burden on health care providers and hospitals and lessen exposure of unaffected persons to persons with influenza. Telephone call centers should be established or augmented within affected communities to provide advice on whether to stay home or to seek care.” This is the important bit: “Home health care providers and organizations can provide follow-up for those who are managed at home decreasing potential exposure of the public to persons who are ill and may transmit infection.” So clear thinking is going on in other countries about how to deal with a problem that this Government has not yet dealt with. 
There are a number of areas that the Government still has to deal with. Many of those areas are the consequences that ordinary people will be confronted with. What happens if someone defaults on his or her contractual obligations because he or she is sick with bird flu? What happens if someone cannot go to work or earn income because that person has bird flu and cannot meet his or her mortgage payments? The Government has not talked about how to deal with those consequences. What happens if people cannot meet their legal payment requirements because their bank is closed due to the pandemic? What will happen then? There has been no thinking on that at all here. The Government has provided some changes in this legislation to make it easier to provide special-needs grants to people who are affected by a pandemic but how will we get money to volunteers who might need to go and buy food for people who are sick at home? None of that is covered in this legislation. 
But what is covered in this legislation—and we should spend some time talking about it—is the fact that one of the biggest risks to the community will be in the area of law and order. There is potential for considerable disorder in a number of situations. For example hospital facilities may be overwhelmed by those seeking care and treatment for their family members and people may vie for limited doses of vaccines and antivirals. There may be difficulties due to disruption of the provision of basic necessities like food and to individuals attempting to leave areas where outbreaks have occurred. I suspect that during a pandemic the biggest crisis the Government will face will be one of public disorder because if people start fighting to get into hospitals to get limited food left in supermarkets or to get out of quarantine zones then we will very quickly be on a road to anarchy and disorder in our communities. That is why it is so important that communities engage in pandemic planning so that people are aware of what their responsibilities will be to themselves their families and others. That is one of the very real points that the National Party has been making from day one in its efforts to get the Government to focus on the important issues involved in pandemic planning. 
I want the Government to know that we will be asking questions in the select committee about what it is doing about particularly the economic consequences to families. After the Hawke’s Bay earthquake far-reaching regulations were passed to allow authorities to deal with all the economic issues. Regulations have been used—they were used in that situation—and they allowed authorities and agents of the State to deal with the breakdown of contractual arrangements. The Government should be dealing with that. I have raised this issue with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health; they came back and said they would have to talk to the banks. That work should have been going on months ago because contractual arrangements and the breakdown of people’s income will be fundamental. That is the biggest gap in this legislation. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the introduction of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. It is about leadership and it is about preparedness. If the law were the only vehicle available then some of the previous speaker’s comments might be valid. But it is not the only vehicle available to prepare for a pandemic in this country. Other means and other plans are well advanced and this legislation is but one part of that planning. It is a necessary part but it is not the only thing that is available. So if the previous speaker has further suggestions to make about what appear to be gaps in the planning for a pandemic then I suggest he looks beyond simply this one mechanism and contributes constructively to the whole planning process. 
In the event of a bird flu or of any other pandemic or epidemic we need to be careful we need to be responsible and we need to be modern about our responses. This bill is all of those things; it is careful responsible and modern. It is about being ready to deal with some of the most serious social and economic challenges this country would have faced in over a generation as the Minister of Health has said today. It provides not only for a flu epidemic but for future epidemics of any kind by amending the 50-year-old Health Act and updating other legislation such as the Parole Act and the Immigration Act. It also introduces some new powers that are only appropriate given the changes in society since the 1956 Health Act. I refer particularly to the provisions around measures such as welfare payments and automatic visa extensions to any visitors or tourists who may be trapped in New Zealand that provide for the restriction of face-to-face contact. 
The key point in this legislation is the protection of the people of New Zealand. We need to balance an infected person’s right to freedom with the rights of an uninfected person to be protected and not to become infected. The powers given to the police in this bill may appear unusual but it is important to remember two things. One is that the circumstances will be extreme and the second is that the additional powers are time limited. The police will have the power to detain people for medical tests and for treatment. They will have powers to assist medical officers of health and health protection officers in the carrying out of their duties and in the protection of the public and the restriction of any further spread of infection. But it is important to note that the notice of epidemic expires on the day 3 months after its commencement. It can be renewed but it has a time-limited application. That should give some comfort to those who may consider that they have concerns about the increased powers. 
The Government has said it invites submissions on the bill. It is open to all constructive suggestions about how the bill can be improved and how additional security and preparedness can be advanced. We welcome any constructive suggestions in that regard. This legislation is about balance. It is about responsible government and it is about being prepared for something that we hope may never happen but that statistically the chances of it occurring are high. It is also a chance for all parties in this House to participate in the protection and care of New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 In the course of this debate we have been privileged to hear from the Hon Tony Ryall in a hard-hitting careful and well-constructed speech on behalf of the National Party. He indicated in his comments just some of the issues that will arise as the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill is considered by the Government Administration Committee. There are a number of significant issues. I would like to start from a quite different basis and talk about the experience for New Zealanders in very practical terms in 1918 when we were hit by a pandemic flu epidemic. Pestilence has not been one of New Zealand’s besetting problems. Even in the earliest days of settlement when preventive and medical services were very limited the salubrious climate and also the austere living conditions were guarantees of a reasonable standard of physical health. 
There were of course outbreaks between 1910 and 1920. The incidence of smallpox warranted preventive measures on a national scale. Similar widespread immunisation and precautionary methods were found necessary in respect of diphtheria. Infantile paralysis—or as it later came to be called poliomyelitis—was also responsible for varying death rolls. From the 1920s onwards it developed on occasion to the point where restrictions on school attendance and public assembly were necessary. However the overall death roll was not high by epidemic standards. 
All of that changed in 1918 when two waves of influenza spread across the country the first being followed by a virile wave that swept through the country from October through to December in that year. Everyone was personally affected in one way or another and special restrictive measures were imposed as the death rate rose sharply. People became depressed. It was not just a matter of months but rather years before the adverse effects of the epidemic were overcome. 
Many people in a way that might be appropriate for Mr Hughes on occasions were treated for the flu by being wrapped in cotton wadding and flannel. At the time there was a lot of discussion and disagreement about the correct way to treat influenza patients. Families were left isolated in their houses for days only collecting bread and milk after it had been delivered and people became too afraid to visit others for fear of catching the disease. 
The disease was in fact carried from the sick soldiers and crew returning home from World War I on the steamship  
Niagara 
 which arrived in Auckland on 12 October. By the middle of November the influenza epidemic in Auckland had peaked with Auckland having approximately 2000 deaths alone. So it started in Auckland and it then spread rapidly south causing an alarming death rate of 1860 people throughout the country in only 8 weeks. By the 13th week it had begun to decline. The total number of deaths from the disease or its complications was believed to be more than 6500 people. 
There were particular challenges in Auckland. On 31 October the Mayor of Auckland Sir James Gunson held a special meeting in the council chambers to form a committee to take appropriate action to help sufferers and also to cope with the epidemic. [ 
Interruption 
] I can tell Mr Hughes that the city was divided into 22 blocks with each doctor being allocated a special area and six temporary hospitals were set up in schools and halls. Houses hotels and boarding houses assumed the aspect of hospitals as so many of the guests and members of staff were affected. 
I speak of these things because if a pandemic does come these are the sorts of situations that our citizens and our residents will have to confront and deal with. There were particular problems in dealing with the dead and that is an issue that I will come to in a moment when I look at specific provisions in the bill before us. But in the result with a huge pile up of corpses in the Auckland Domain an order was made requiring all bodies of persons who had died from influenza or its complications to be buried and special trains were provided from that place of death to the Waikumete Cemetery for burial. 
It is all very well and it is appropriate that we support this bill going to a select committee but we need to realise that all it does is construct the statutory frameworks for dealing with a limited number of situations and there have to be sitting behind this statutory work the physical measures that need to be taken to engage in pandemic planning and the implementation of remedial work. 
So what does this legislation do? Well it makes pandemic influenza a quarantinable disease. It enables quarantine powers at the border it clarifies the emergency powers available to medical officers of health it provides powers for the New Zealand police to assist medical officers of health and it supports action to prevent or manage a health emergency. I am not myself convinced that this epidemic notice technique will actually be very satisfactory but that as the bill describes is a “trigger provision” and it enables the Prime Minister to issue a  
Gazette 
 notice declaring that she—it will be “he” by then—is satisfied that the effects of the outbreak of an infectious disease are likely to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand. The  
Gazette 
 notice then triggers a range of possible actions. However just on the face of it they seem to me to be quite limited. 
The Resource Management Act will be amended so that resource consent is not necessary to establish community treatment centres mass graves and so on for 24 months if there is an epidemic. Other Acts will be amended to provide for temporary relief from use-of-money interest and penalties for taxpayers and the relaxation of immigration provisions parole provisions probation conditions and then the relaxation of benefit provisions and the providing of emergency benefits for people who would not usually be entitled. 
A further plan is to amend the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act so that doctors and appropriately qualified nurses can issue death certificates without having necessarily attended the person before death. [ 
Interruption 
] The clapping by Darren Hughes on the other side of the Chamber reminds me of the strength of the proposition I initially advanced that there are in this community as there were in 1918 a number of people who might well be treated by being wrapped in cotton wadding and flannel. It seems to me that Mr Hughes would certainly lend himself to such a treatment. 
As we look around the world we see in what is going on in countries like Viet Nam the high probability that this pandemic might break out in a country like that despite the very best efforts by authorities in particular countries. For example in Viet Nam in the Ninh Binh province a mass vaccination programme has been initiated by the Viet Namese Government. It has been a huge project staffed by 80000 workers and I understand that by January 2006 more than 240 million poultry had been inoculated against bird flu. 
 It seems for the present that that has worked because in January the agricultural ministry in Viet Nam declared that the country had contained bird flu with no more outbreaks reported in the previous 3 weeks in the 21 cities previously affected. I instance Viet Nam because the risk of bird flu transferring to humans will continue there for many years. The country has a bird population of 84 million and those birds in small flocks are located in backyards with people living in close proximity. It is the perfect incubator for the H5N1 virus to mutate into one easily transmissible between humans. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill going to the Government Administration Committee. There is no doubt that in the event of an epidemic—whether it be bird flu some other fatal influenza or another disease we heard about from the previous speaker Dr Richard Worth—the population at large will be looking to the Government for a speedy response and leadership for the country. They will also look for some guidance and assurance that a crisis of that kind will be managed as best as it is possible to be managed. We must commend the Government for its actions in updating this legislation in a timely manner—better before the event than after the event. This bill is all about managing a crisis from imposing quarantine powers at borders to clarifying the emergency powers available to the medical officers of health and the police and managing a whole range of other matters that may be disruptive or may be needed to deal with the specific consequences of an epidemic. 
It is not that a bird flu pandemic could not become a reality; a mutation in the virus could lead to a human epidemic. Statistics suggest that if that mutation were to continue with a high fatality rate—apparently 30 to 50 percent among people known to have contracted the infection—then the results would be disastrous and we would need the legislation as outlined by Dr Richard Worth. Fortunately at this stage the chances of that occurring seem to be low. However medical researchers say that an epidemic is always on the cards as are major volcanic eruptions tsunamis or earthquakes. An influenza epidemic occurred in 1918 and there will almost certainly be another one in the future. Wise people always learn from the lessons of the past. 
New Zealand First notes that this legislation responds to the World Health Organization advice and it ensures there is clarity certainty and legislative authority so that the public health response is appropriate. That is absolutely what is required. The last thing the public wants or needs is a weak or disorganised response by the Government or the health authorities in such a crisis. It is essential to be prepared and we know that any crisis of the magnitude outlined by the previous speaker would be absolutely disastrous. 
The Health Act of 1956 did have some gaps that do affect the Government’s ability to respond to an epidemic and it is very timely to review and update that legislation. A number of Acts will be affected by this legislation. I read from the bill that the Holidays Act of 2003 the Income Tax Act of 2004 the Parole Act of 2002 and the Sentencing Act of 2002 will be affected—it is quite an extensive list; I have mentioned only a few. Some of the legal obligations talked about by the Hon Tony Ryall are covered in this bill and as Maryan Street said improvements and constructive suggestions are definitely welcome. 
Just last year the Health Committee had a briefing from the Ministry of Health on version 14 of the New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Action Plan and there is no doubt whatsoever that the Ministry of Health has further refined that plan. The version number I am sure would be much higher now than 14. I believe that the Ministry of Health can be commended for the preparations it currently has under way. We always know that preparations can be improved as the US has identified and the Ministry of Health will no doubt be looking at the American plan with great interest. 
 New Zealand First is pleased to see all the information and the material that are now available advising the public about the necessity for family preparedness. Although many families are able to stockpile some food and other goods in the event of a pandemic we must be very aware too that some families on fixed incomes will find this challenging and this aspect must be prepared for and covered in legislation. We do not want to have families unnecessarily starving. 
New Zealand First supports this legislation. Preparation is absolutely essential if we are to ensure that a pandemic is managed as well as it possibly can be. A pandemic threat such as bird flu or any disease is basically too important for petty party politics and needs leadership and measures such as are proposed and outlined in this legislation. We support this legislation going to a select committee. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this legislation going to a select committee but we do have some serious concerns that I will raise here and that I will seek to address at the select committee. Frankly the predictions about what might happen in New Zealand if there is a pandemic are almost Kafkaesque. We have had predictions of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders becoming ill and not being able to bury the dead and so on. We do agree with Tony Ryall in this regard—the key issue will be for people to manage in their own homes so we need to have medical care that can reach people in their homes. We think that this is—along with the lack of surveillance—a key hole in the pandemic preparedness plan. 
We are pleased that we have also had a role in prodding the Government into taking greater action on this issue. At the beginning of last year the Government did not have any supplies of personal protective equipment or anything else available. Now partly through its own initiatives and partly because of the prodding and questions of members in this House I believe that the Government has a much greater level of preparedness but there are still some significant gaps. Although there has been much talk about improving our surveillance I see no evidence whatsoever of improved surveillance so that is the greatest gap. Secondly how will we treat people in their own homes? This fundamental question has not been answered. 
But I will focus today on the issues of police powers. We certainly acknowledge that we need police powers in an emergency to be able to enforce quarantines and suchlike. We have no problem with this and we recognise that it is essential. The problem is that the police powers in this bill are completely unrestricted; we can see no restrictions on them whatsoever. What this could mean is that for example people could be forced to be vaccinated against their will. I think people should have an option there. They could choose to stay home rather than to be vaccinated. 
Secondly under the powers of this bill health professionals could be forced to go to work even if they should be protected under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. This Act states that if health professionals feel that their safety and health are at risk they do not have to turn up to work. This bill appears to override those provisions and it seems to me that nurses doctors and ambulance officers etc. could be forced to work under the provisions of this legislation by force—by police—even if they feel that their health is at risk and even if they feel that they are not properly protected. This appears to us to override all of the provisions in the Health and Safety in Employment Act. We think this is a real concern and that health professionals ought to be made aware of the unrestrained and unrestricted nature of these powers. 
We will be seeking to amend those police powers—which we agree are necessary—to make them focused on the implementation of quarantine such as quarantining aircraft and communities in order to protect against specific risks. We have no problem with those police powers at all. The problem is that this completely erodes civil liberties to the point where we would have no democracy but would have a totalitarian State. 
We think that what has happened is that the officials in drafting this legislation thought about every eventuality and every situation where they might need some powers but the consequences are that they have ended up with completely unrestricted powers which actually offer no protection or civil liberties to individuals or indeed to health professionals. I have spoken to many health professionals and all of them said that because of their duties they of course would wish to go to work but that they would have concerns if they were expected to go to work unprotected be exposed to a virus then take that virus home and expose their families. That could cause their families to suffer from a disease. We do not know how serious bird flu might be but it could put their lives at risk. That is why we have the provisions of the Health and Safety in Employment Act and we are concerned that those provisions are overridden in this bill. 
Many people have referred to the 1918 influenza epidemic but in a way we are probably far less equipped or prepared in 2006 than we were in 1918. In 1918 people knew their neighbours they had communities—communities were not decimated as so many of our communities are today—and most people grew their own food. And they knew how to survive on their own. We have a tradition in our history—both Pakeha and Maori—of people actually surviving in conditions where they are on their own. But today most of us could not survive for much more than about 24 hours and I think most people would indeed panic and be completely ill-equipped to cope if there was a pandemic. 
What we need to do is to focus on encouraging people to be more self-sufficient and to be able to cope on their own and for New Zealand as a whole as a nation to be more self-sufficient. We learnt that during the SARS epidemic when the Government tried to order supplies of personal protective equipment and discovered that it could not get any because there was an international panic. So the SARS epidemic progressed and had it come to New Zealand we would not even have had personal protective equipment. We were completely reliant on imports for that; we simply did not have stockpiles. 
So the Green Party members think that we need to be much better prepared as a nation and more self-reliant in respect of medicines equipment and indeed of basic fundamentals like food as well as drugs. We still have huge holes in that regard. We are glad the Government has begun to develop some sort of provisions—for example contingency supplies of antibiotics. We have a very limited supply of Tamiflu. It is not nearly enough even to protect our health workforce and from answers to written questions we do not think we have nearly enough personal protective equipment to equip our health workforce. That being the case it is all the more essential that if our health workforce are not able to be properly protected in the event of an epidemic in terms of personal protective equipment Tamiflu and so forth then they should have the option—as they are given presently under the Health and Safety in Employment Act—of not turning up for work. Unfortunately under this bill all of those provisions are overridden and the police powers are completely and totally unrestricted. We will certainly seek to specify those police powers. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.