Boscawen John: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
Boscawen John: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
[Volume:672;Page:18720] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. ACT opposes these bills as they are a radical departure from the principle of one law for all. ACT believes in fair and final settlements for Treaty grievances which is why in the past we have sent Treaty settlement bills to select committees. However on this occasion ACT cannot in good conscience do the same with these bills. 
Let me first outline why ACT will oppose the Waipa River bill. Part 2 of the bill will extend a co-governance framework to parts of the Waikato River including the Waipa River. Co-governance is an affront to the principle of equality before the law something that ACT has championed for over a decade. The co-governance framework will provide legal mechanisms in order for Maniapoto to participate in the governance and management of the Waipa River. It will force local authorities to put in place joint management agreements that cover functions of the Resource Management Act. The activities of people who use the Waipa River are currently regulated by elected officials; if people object to the management of the river they have the simple option of voting the officials out of office. If this bill is passed users of the river will also be regulated by officials within Maniapoto officials who are not elected and not accountable to the users of the river. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all. 
The bad news does not end with the Waipa River bill. The Government seems intent— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I never heard so much trite and boring old sameness— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. The member will sit down. It is a debatable point. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: The Government seems intent on replicating the undemocratic model of co-governance in its other Treaty settlements. In Minister Finlayson’s own press release that announced the Ngati Porou deed of settlement last December he boasted that the settlement would provide “Ngati Porou with input into the strategic governance of specific conservation sites …”. Clause 46 of the bill forces resource consent authorities to provide Ngati Porou with a summary of applications for resource consent in the same way they would have to do for an affected person as defined under the Resource Management Act. 
Instead of consulting only iwi who are actually affected by the Resource Management Act activity authorities must now give certain iwi special consultation rights over and above the rights afforded to other New Zealanders. There is no way for the Government to deny that this bill forms a co-governance framework. Clauses 23 to 31 provide for—in the Government’s own words—“nga Whakahaere Takirua” which translates directly as dual authority. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all. 
Of similar concern is the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. The agreement in principle states that cultural redress should include co-management regimes over parts of the Mohaka Waikari and Waihua Rivers. As with the Ngati Porou agreement clause 64 of this bill requires local authorities to forward applications for resource consents in each of the three rivers to iwi. Again instead of having a duty simply to consult all New Zealanders according to the same process authorities will be forced to consult iwi separately. 
The Ngati Pahauwera Development Trust must also be appointed as an advisory committee in relation to the fisheries activities of the Mohaka River. Instead of fisheries activities being regulated by elected officials they will now be regulated by unelected unaccountable officials who are appointed simply because they are part of the right iwi. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all. ACT first rose to speak against co-governance— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The speaker has waxed lyrical about who has been elected and who is unelected but he has just come through the dire experience of his leader being elected when he was not even in the organisation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. What is your point of order? That is a debating matter. It is not a point of order. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Instead of fisheries activities being regulated by elected officials they will now be regulated by unelected unaccountable officials who are appointed simply because they are part of the right iwi. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all. 
ACT first rose to speak against co-governance in Treaty legislation when the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill was before the House last year. ACT said then that governance should be the preserve of elected representatives. Iwi representatives are not elected by the general public nor are they accountable to the public. ACT strongly opposes the recent trends towards co-governance arrangements in Treaty settlements. ACT has always called for fair and final Treaty settlements. If the bills before the House address simply the historical grievances as past settlements have done ACT would certainly support them going to a select committee. But we do not and will not support Parliament legislating for two standards of citizenship. Treaty settlement legislation should be about righting past wrongs. It should not become a rubber stamp to the carving-up of our nation’s rivers and conservation sites. ACT believes strongly in having one law for all and we will be voting against these bills. 
Let me also go on to record that when I rose to speak on these three bills I was greeted by a constant barrage of heckling and criticism. But I say to members in this House and to members in the gallery that no political party is more dedicated to righting wrongs and solving our social crises than the ACT Party. We have championed the rights of 16 and 17-year-old young Maori people to go out and get an apprenticeship and to earn $8 or $10 an hour. But when we asked the Minister for Social Development and Employment last week in question time she could not bring herself to acknowledge that it was better to have a young Maori— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will hear the member but if he is trifling with my previous rulings by raising a debating point I might require the member to leave the Chamber. I do not want these interruptions unless they are bona fide points. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I think there was total irrelevance when he started talking about $8 to $10 per hour. What relevance is that to this bill? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is a debating point. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I will conclude by saying to members and particularly to those in the gallery that no party in Parliament believes that it would do more with its policies to help young unemployed Maori than the ACT Party. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that I have been around just a wee bit longer than that member but I am pretty sure we are not allowed to bring the gallery into the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: In actual fact members cannot address the gallery. I guess that members can refer in the context of the bill to who might be present but they are not allowed specifically to address people in the gallery. The point is well made because I think the member was getting pretty close to doing that. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Let me conclude by saying that the ACT Party more than any other political party in this Parliament wants to make a difference and wants to solve the country’s growing social problems. We had a situation last Thursday when the Minister for Social Development and Employment struggled absolutely struggled to stop herself from acknowledging that it is far better to have a young Maori apprentice earning $10 an hour than sitting at home on the unemployment benefit. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to see where the relevance of those statements are to the kaupapa before the House right at the moment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that various members have talked about the bill as making a way for prosperity for Maoridom and I think that in the context of that the member is making some points. I guess that it is up to members to make that judgment but I think he is in the same sort of territory albeit a bit looser that some previous members have been in. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I speak not just to the members in this House but also to the members of the New Zealand public. My message to the people of New Zealand is that we need to solve our social problems. We do not solve social problems by setting up an arrangement of co-governance; we should look at the issue and address the underlying cause. It is a pity that the Minister for Social Development and Employment could not bring herself to acknowledge that. It took three points of order to get her to acknowledge she would much rather have someone in an apprenticeship than on the unemployment benefit. 
I am very proud to be the parliamentary leader of the ACT Party. We oppose these bills but we certainly do not oppose policies that will actually address the underlying causes of problems in New Zealand. Thank you.