Volume 625 Week 87 - Tuesday 3 May 2005 
Volume 625 Week 87 - Tuesday 3 May 2005 
[Volume:625;Page:20145] 
Tuesday 3 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation  and References Committee 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation and References Committee are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is the second time I have sought your assistance on this matter. I have asked several written questions of the Minister of Health and the answers are now long overdue. In fact one of the questions was first asked of the Minister of Health on 29 April 2004 so that question is now more than 1 year overdue. I raised this matter with you in the House on a point of order on 16 March and you requested that I should write to you. I did so and you responded on 17 March saying that you would look into this matter and contact me again. That was 6 weeks ago and I have yet to hear from you. I would just like to say that Standing Order 366(4) is very specific on this matter and reads: “The reply to a question for written answer must be lodged no later than the sixth working day following the day on which the question is published.” I have 11 questions that are well and truly beyond the 6-day mark and I wonder what redress I now have. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. My understanding is that a response was given but I will look into it further for her. 
Questions to Ministers 
Pharmac—Policies and Procedures 
1. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she believe that Pharmac’s operating policies and procedures deliver consistently satisfactory outcomes sufficient to ensure the health and well-being of New Zealanders; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In the main yes. Pharmac has ensured that New Zealand continues to have access to a wide range of high-quality pharmaceuticals at an affordable cost to taxpayers through a national schedule of subsidised medicines. However the operating policies and procedures can always be improved and reviewed on a regular basis as is currently the case. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Given that the Minister told Susan Wood on the  
Close Up 
 programme and told the House this afternoon that the operating procedures and policies of Pharmac were under review and that things like sole supply could be looked at as part of that review how does she reconcile that statement with comments made by the chief executive of Pharmac that “Pharmac does not propose to make many changes to the operating policies and procedures”; and which one of them is telling the truth? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A full review of the operating procedures and policies is under way. I say to that member that the opportunity for members to have an input and for the public and the pharmaceutical industry to have an input is there. No decision has been made on what changes there will be. I believe that the chief executive will be stating that he cannot see many changes that need to be made but that does not mean there will not be. 
Mark Peck 
: When was the last review of Pharmac’s operating policies and procedures and what input did the pharmaceutical industry have into that review? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The last full review was in 1999-2000 and at that stage the industry patients and medical groups were consulted. It is 5 years since that review. This latest review will be open to the same range of groups including the industry to have an input into operating policies and procedures. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the Minister says that New Zealanders by and large can be satisfied with the way in which Pharmac performs does she include in that consideration the response to this year’s flu vaccine issue particularly now that it appears the whole episode was unnecessary given that the original vaccine apparently was effective anyway? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I assume the member is talking about the fact that we had a sole supply contract for the flu vaccine. That has been the case for the 7 years we have had a subsidised flu vaccine approach in New Zealand. That certainly will be looked at by the ministry which gave the contract for this last year to Pharmac and we will see the results of that in the near future. In terms of the flu vaccine it was not possible for Medsafe to register a medicine that had not reached the standard that had been sought and set by the World Heath Organization. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that drug companies often play hardball in negotiations with Pharmac and that switching suppliers is sometimes the only way to get a drug company to negotiate a realistic price for its product and therefore ensure affordable treatment for New Zealanders? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I totally agree with the member. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister seen the material provided to Asthma New Zealand - The Lung Association in response to its questionnaire of patients concerning the switch from Ventolin to Salamol reliever for asthma sufferers and in view of the strong rejection of Pharmac’s move to switch from Ventolin to Salamol is she prepared to direct Pharmac to reconsider its decision in this regard? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac and Medsafe are investigating complaints about Salamol. In the meantime Ventolin and Salamol will continue to be fully funded for patients until those investigations conclude. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is Risperdal Consta an antipsychotic injectable used by professionals on a fortnightly basis and paid for by taxpayers in the OECD and Australia not available in New Zealand where the comparison is the hand out of tablets which are frequently not used by those patients leading to wide-scale problems in our society; and why does she not make that drug available in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have that answer with me; I will find out for the member. I am aware that a number of antipsychotic medications that are injected are available in New Zealand. I do not know about that particular one but I will get the answer for the member. 
Police—Former Commissioner 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: On what specific dates in 1999 and 2000 did she speak with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 regarding the actions of then Police Commissioner Peter Doone during a traffic incident in November 1999 and for what purpose did she have those discussions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I cannot recall specific dates from over 5 years ago. I would have answered questions put to me by the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 as is my normal practice. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister or anyone on her behalf hold copies of the transcripts of telephone conversations she had with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
; if so will she authorise their release and that of her brief of evidence on the matter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Journalists’ notes of some conversations but not all have been made available. Given that we are told that further litigation is pending I do not think it would be wise to release them. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has she seen the transcripts of her conversations with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
’ 
reporter and editor; if not has she asked her lawyer whether he has seen the transcripts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seen journalists’ notes of some conversations but not of all. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question also asked the Prime Minister whether she had asked her lawyer if he had seen the transcripts. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that the lawyer has shown me all that he has received. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it true that some of the Prime Minister’s five conversations with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 occurred following the publication of the original story on 16 January 2000 and that those reassured the paper that the information she had given it was correct and that it should hang tough and keep investigating the commissioner? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The  
Sunday Star-Times  
ran stories on that matter every Sunday from 5 December 1999 onwards. The  
Sunday Star-Times 
 as I recollect put it to me that the commissioner’s car had been approached by a constable with some kind of breath-testing device—I think it is known as a sniffer—which I would have confirmed. I would then I am very certain have said that there were differing accounts of what was said between the constable and the commissioner. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether some of her conversations occurred after the publication on 16 January. She did not attempt to answer that question at all. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: They may well have done but I have told the member that I cannot recall when over 5 years ago people spoke to me. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is there a pattern developing here of the type that emerged in the Dover Samuels case wherein the Prime Minister said that he could not remain a Minister while allegations were swirling about him and it turned out that she was the chief “swirler” in that matter—as she appears to be in this case as well? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That most certainly is not the case. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What briefing has the Prime Minister had from her lawyer on this issue and on what date did she have her last briefing? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously ever since the  
Sunday Star-Times 
’ 
lawyers made it clear to my lawyer that the paper would subpoena me if evidence was not provided there has been ongoing interaction with my lawyer including to this day. Those conversations are of course privileged. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why when the Prime Minister had both the Robinson report and the Police Complaints Authority report—neither of which asserted that commissioner Doone had said: “That won’t be necessary”—did she verify for the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that he had indeed made such a statement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is quite correct that neither the Police Complaints Authority report nor then deputy commissioner Robinson’s report used those words. I can only imagine that the reporter put those words to me and I would not have been in a position to confirm them because they were not in the reports. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has her lawyer briefed her on the contents of the conversations that she had with the  
Sunday Star-Times  
5 years ago and is it not the case that she is not really trying to remember back 5 years but just to the last briefing that she had from her lawyer? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Those conversations took place over 5 years ago. There appear to be no tapes of them available. There are journalists’ notes of some conversations but not of others. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister did not address my question in any way shape or form. My question specifically was: has her lawyer briefed her on the contents of the conversations that she had with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened carefully and the Prime Minister did address the general point of your question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Maybe you could tell us the answer because I could not get it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please stand withdraw and apologise? 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Calling a member a liar is unparliamentary. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the Prime Minister’s statement that there appear to be some journalists’ notes available has either she or her lawyer asked the  
Sunday Star-Times  
for the recorded transcripts of the discussions that she had with the editor and journalists of the  
Sunday Star-Times  
so that she is properly equipped to answer these questions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that my lawyer does have what is available. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will the Prime Minister waive any entitlement to confidentiality and allow the release of the reporters’ notes and any available transcripts so that the serious question marks that now stand over her credibility can be dealt with? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Given that further legal action is being threatened I do not think that that would be desirable. I should also say that the Leader of the Opposition might well draw no comfort from the fact that his counterpart in Britain launches ceaseless attacks like this to no good effect as is the case here. 
Cataract Operations—Announcements 
3.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What announcements has she made about improvements to the number of cataract operations performed annually? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Today I was delighted to announce that the Government will spend an extra $17 million over the next 3 years to provide up to 7500 more cataract operations. Like the orthopaedic project I announced last year the cataract initiative will dramatically improve the quality of life for thousands more older New Zealanders. When the cataract initiative is fully implemented in 2008 there will be 12000 cataract operations publicly funded each year compared with 8000 now. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What responses has she seen to today’s announcement of such a large increase in publicly funded cataract surgery? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen a media release from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists in which the college president Dr Allan Rosenberg from Australia and the chair of the New Zealand branch Dr Stephen Best welcomed the announcements. Dr Best said that the initiative is a major step in addressing the inequitable distribution of access to cataract surgery. He says that cataract surgery is a very effective intervention in terms of improving the lives of New Zealanders. I am very delighted with their support for this project. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What guarantee can she give to the 4698 ophthalmology patients who at February 2005 have waited longer than 6 months for first specialist assessment—many of whom are going blind not only from cataracts but from diabetic eye disease glaucoma and amblyopia in children—that they will be seen promptly? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I thank the member for the question because the guarantee I can give him—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Let the Minister answer the question. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The guarantee that the Government can give is that 12000 cataract operations will be done a year compared with 8000 now which I have to say is more than used to be done under the previous National Government. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a very specific question about what guarantee she can give that 4698 ophthalmology patients who have waited longer than 6 months for their first specialist assessment will be seen promptly. She did not address that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. She may not have given the answer in exactly the way the member wanted it but she addressed the question and that is what is required under the Standing Orders. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister believe that the lottery approach whereby the Government selects an ailment and provides a one-off funding boost to reduce patient numbers is an acceptable alternative to a properly run health system in which operations are performed as and when they are needed; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Other elective procedures are run as they should be. However there are two operations that the specialists in New Zealand plus organisations like Grey Power will tell the member give a quality of life above any other operations: cataract operations and major joint operations. We have not done enough of either of those operations in New Zealand. This Government was not prepared to sit on its hands and continue with that. We have taken the initiative. We are seeing the results now with the orthopaedic project and we will see the results with the cataract project. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that it is ridiculous that people suffering from mobility and eyesight difficulties are forced to travel distances to other district health boards for cataract surgery if their own district health board is too busy when local private providers just around the corner have spaces available; if so will she give an assurance that the private sector capacity will be fully utilised and if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am pleased to tell the member that this project involves operations in public hospitals neighbouring public hospitals and the private sector as well as the mobile surgical bus which can go into areas where people are living so that they do not have to travel as we saw this morning when a cataract operation was carried out in Kapiti which we were able to watch in my office. Last month I saw a cataract operation carried out in Westport so the ability to do that operation in different ways is part of the project. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How does today’s announcement compare with the delivery of cataract surgery in New Zealand in the past? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am aware of a number of cataract operations conducted from 1996. The highest number of cataract operations performed without one-off funding from the waiting-times fund was 7000 in 1999. In the past we have performed 8119 such operations all from within sustainable funding. In 3 years’ time we will be performing 12000 operations from sustainable funding. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just spin! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Even the member who is calling out may qualify if he needs one. He certainly would not have done so under his Government. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How many cataract operations could be done with the $170000 she is spending on sex-change operations? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The sum of $170000 is the total expenditure on gender reassignment. Interestingly enough not one member in the National Government of the 1990s complained when it gave funds to carry out the same surgery. I wonder why it is not acceptable today when it was all right under a National Government. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Ministry of Health website which shows that in February 2005 there were 4698 ophthalmology patients who had waited longer than 6 months for their first specialist assessment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes the document will not be tabled. 
Immigration—Iraqi Former Official 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still have confidence in her Minister of Immigration given that a former Iraqi official of Saddam Hussein’s regime was allowed to enter New Zealand yet he will not name him in spite of there being a revocation of his visitor permit? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why when her Minister and officials were told it was a person who had been a Minister in Saddam Hussein’s regime did they produce someone who had been a diplomat and never was a Minister—in short they went out for a wolf and brought back a rabbit? Why have we got the wrong person in this answer from the Minister of Immigration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member has evidence of a former Minister being present he should come forward because I can say that this Government would not knowingly admit or allow to stay such a person—but we require evidence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well which part of this evidence fits the man whom she claims alongside her Minister to have found: a former Iraqi Minister for Agriculture and Agrarian Reform a former delegate to the Food and Agriculture Organization and Unesco (Baghdad) who came here on a UN passport only about a month ago and who consulted for example with the lawyers of one Ahmed Zaoui—already costing this country $2 million—McLeod and Associates? Which one of those facts fits the man whom she has found? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: None. I ask the member to give us his evidence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would the Prime Minister keep in place a Minister who makes all sorts of claims about national security yet cannot name to enlist the help of New Zealanders and of Western society in general the person he claims to have found? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There are very good reasons for not putting such names in the public arena and I think that for at least one of those reasons the member would have some sympathy. Once the name of someone who is a refugee status claimant goes into the public arena the fact that the name is in the public arena can actually lead to a successful claim. The member will recall that one of the problems with the Zaoui case was that Mr Zaoui’s name was put into the public arena and that then had weight in the refugee status application. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister whether this is her quote which she said at a Pacific round table on counter-terrorism: “The problem to be confronted in our region is not so much that terrorists will seek to attack the citizens or institutions of Pacific countries; it is rather that the Pacific might present a tempting target either for an attack like the one on Bali or as a base from which terrorist cells might undertake the planning and groundwork for an attack somewhere else.”; so why is she now showing no leadership on this issue by not demanding that the man be named? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I am asking is that the member provides any information he has about such a person to the authorities so that we can act on it—because we will. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When last week the information was given to this Government that there was such a person in New Zealand—a former Saddam Hussein Cabinet Minister—and that he had been in this country for a month would that not have been enough information for the Prime Minister or any half-way competent surveillance service to be able to find this man; why is this Government so incompetent? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Following the member’s statements last week extensive checks were made in respect of Iraqi passport holders. Mr Peters today has told the House that these people this person whatever are UN passport holders. We would be grateful to have more information from him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister why she has been giving assurances in this country and abroad as has Mr Goff on anti-terrorism legislation and as has the Minister of Immigration on the lines for example of having an Advance Passenger Screening system when this man as Mr Swain has acknowledged entered abroad gave voluntarily information and was still not picked up? What sort of circus is running on in this country under her leadership? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not sure whether Mr Peters is referring to the case where Mr Swain has revoked the visa application or the one that Mr Peters is referring to today. In respect of the one where the visa has been revoked clearly there were problems in the immigration systems and they will be fixed to the best of the Government’s ability. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister mean to tell the country that despite all the assurances and blandishments made since September 11 2001 she is not aware of Amer Mahdi al-Khashali also known as Amer Mahdi Saleh Khashaly a former Minister for Agriculture and Agrarian Reform in the Saddam Hussein Government at the same time that hundreds of thousands of Kurds were losing their lives under a regime of genocide; does she mean to tell me she still does not know that this person is living in this country and has been for over a month now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If such a person arrived on a UN passport he would not necessarily trigger any concern. I thank the member for now putting that evidence before us and we will be following it up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister recall being advised at the security intelligence committee which she chairs of the need to take seriously the issue of terrorism in this country as one that she should focus new resources on and to start trawling through some of the applications in the way that other countries have done; and is it not a fact that she has not done a damned thing since she was given that advice by namely myself? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee he will know that expenditure in this area has been among the fastest-growing areas of Government expenditure because of this Government’s determination to play a part in the international effort against terrorism. Now that Mr Peters has given details checks will be made about this individual. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Coming back to my original question how can the Minister be a hard-working and conscientious Minister when he does not have the remotest idea of which Arab—Osama bin Laden or anybody else—may be in this country where he might be or what he is doing here? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member will be aware that there are individuals who go to considerable lengths to cheat immigration authorities worldwide so that they can enter countries and I would venture to say that no system is foolproof against that. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Prime Minister explain whether she will be checking the competence of her Minister of Immigration as he has apparently ordered another man “outski” on the next plane with no further inquiry after that man came here openly and apparently lawfully—his offence apparently being that he represented his country while the wrong thug was in charge—yet the Government cannot get rid of Ahmed Zaoui a proven associate of terrorists although it started trying 2 years ago? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can say that information was received about the gentleman whose visitor visa Mr Swain has seen to it was revoked that would mean that he should not have been given rollovers of his visitor visa. I can also confirm because I am not talking about a source within the SIS that that information came from another source and was incriminating. The slip in the system was that it was not linked with the file at an earlier stage. In respect of the comparison the member is trying to draw with the Zaoui case I can say that if the man whose visitor visa has now been revoked decides to put in refugee status claim applications no doubt the legal industry will be very busy trying to draw the case out as it has done with Mr Zaoui. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has had his supplementary questions—in fact he has had one more. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the fact I have waited a week for some disclosure on this matter— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —hang on; I want members to know why I am seeking leave—and because I and the media have been given the name of the wrong person I seek leave to ask one more supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask a question. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The member may ask the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it true in regard to the Prime Minister’s “hard-working and conscientious” Minister of Immigration that we have 20000 overstayers in New Zealand today and that we have somewhere in New Zealand 400 people who came here with false missing or misleading travel documentation and whose whereabouts the Minister does not know? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course there are overstayers in New Zealand—there were when the gentleman was Deputy Prime Minister—and every effort is made to get rid of them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There was a simple request as to whether it is true that we have 400 people missing in New Zealand who came here with false missing or misleading travel documentation and of whose whereabouts the Minister is not aware. Is that true or not? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed that question by saying as I recall that efforts were made to track down overstayers as there always have been. That addressed the question. It may not be the answer the member wanted but it did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I have ruled on that point. Is this a different point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You might have but with respect an overstayer may be someone who has been here with legal documentation which has expired. I am talking about someone who is here illegally from day one. There are 400 of them as the Minister has admitted in the past. I want to know whether the Prime Minister still believes that is true. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member knows every year numbers of people come to New Zealand who have tried to put their passports down the toilet in the plane or to do a variety of other things. Actually the trend is down and I think it would be rather down on what it was in the 1990s. Also I heard Mr Peters in one of his asides during an earlier question assert that half Saddam Hussein’s cabinet was here. I have no evidence of that but if he would like to provide it we are happy to look at it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When in my prior questions did I make that statement? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have no recollection of that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Prime Minister is required to be terse and to the point. That is what the Standing Orders say. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a rhetorical question. The member knows that. Will he please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I will have my point of order made without interruption from you. If you do not mind Madam Chair— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You may make your point of order. Please make it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I make my point of order without your constant interruptions? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am inviting you to make it so please do that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Please can I make it without your interrupting me every 5 seconds? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes by all means. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well thank you for the courtesy overdue as it may be. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to withdraw that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. Can I now have my point of order heard in silence? Madam Chair where in that statement from the Prime Minister was there any evidence that it was a repetition of something I had said? If it was not then why did you not check her as you would any other person in this House who was detouring from the requirements of the Standing Orders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Speaking to the point of order I want to say I made it quite clear that Mr Peters had made the comment in an aside. It was made as he was sitting down after one of his constant interventions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Immigration Service check of appropriate files revealed any other Iraqi immigrants of interest—in particular any ranking officials who may in fact have gained refugee status in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The check has been of those who have had applications in the system over the past year or so which was relevant to the circumstances raised by Mr Peters. I do not know of anything else that has come to light in the course of that check. I do not have any advice on whether others have slipped through the net in past years. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do so in order to be helpful and to clarify matters. Mr Peters has named an alleged Minister of the Iraqi Government. He said his name but it might save some confusion if he were to take leave and spell it out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that is not a point of order. To assist the member I am sure the correct spelling will be in the record when in fact there is the opportunity to look at the  
Hansard 
. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to spell out the name so that the officials might do something in the next few days to find this man. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to spell out the name. Is there any objection? Yes there is so the name will not be spelt out. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My concern is this: if the name goes out misspelt it could be that the wrong person is named. I think it is fair if a person is to be named that we want it to be accurate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave was sought. Would the member please sit down. 
Rodney Hide 
: I want to explain it. I think that if the member puts the leave again he might get accepted because the danger is that if the name is misspelt or misheard we could have the wrong person being named. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave was sought by the member to spell the name. We will try it again for the final time. Leave is sought to spell the name. Is there any objection? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. I seek leave to table a document that has on it the name of this former Minister of Saddam’s regime. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Public Service—Staff Numbers 
5.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What reports if any has he received on changes to the number of staff employed in the public service? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I have seen a report from Dr Brash stating that without policy analysts and information one cannot make good decisions. I have seen another report from John Key stating that the Government employs too many policy analysts. If when in Opposition they cannot come up with a policy on how to make policy it is no wonder that no one trusts them. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister advise the House how many Government employees would need to be sacked in order to reprioritise $200 million in spending? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of ways of looking at it. If one took lower-paid public servants such as social workers Work and Income case workers call centre operators and customs officers then 5000 people would be sacked to make Don Brash’s $200 million in reprioritisation. But of course if it were higher-paid people such as teachers or nurses one would have to sack only 3500 Government employees. Don Brash said he would cut $200 million. He should tell us which ones he would sack. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister realise that the hiring binge being undertaken by the State sector is adding to the skill shortage and wage inflation being felt by the private sector and is this not one of the reasons that Dr Alan Bollard rated today when he indicated that interest rates will rise in June for the eighth time this year; or does this Minister not care about borrowing rates that New Zealanders are paying? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Dr Bollard unlike his predecessor does not make statements like that. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table Dr Alan Bollard’s statement in which he made that comment today—unusual as it is—between monetary policy statements. 
Document not tabled. 
Police—Former Commissioner 
6.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of the statement by Fairfax chief operating officer and editor-in-chief that “the full story is not being told at this time and is not being represented accurately in some public statements and reports.” does she stand by her claim that she “would have drawn their attention to the fact that the evidence was contested.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she deny to the House that she assured the  
Sunday Star-Times  
reporter and editor that they were accurate in what they were claiming after they had published it on 16 January 2000 and after Peter Doone had told them they had it wrong and was threatening suit? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I stand by my claim that I would have said that the evidence was contested. What I had in front of me were official reports that suggested that it was. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My actual question was: “Does she deny …” and that question was not answered. It is a yes or no question. She could answer yes to the primary question; what about to the supplementary question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member is aware the Minister has to address the question not answer it to the satisfaction of the member. That is the Standing Order. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she required the resignation of the previous Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel for lying to the media and can she advise the House why she is applying a lesser standard to herself when she has clearly provided information to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that she must have known on the basis of the Police Complaints Authority report and the Robinson report to be untrue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not believe the assertions in the member’s questions to be true. 
Public Works Act—Land Acquisition 
7.  
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What processes are taken into account to recognise the status use or significance of land acquired under the Public Works Act 1981? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 The due process of law is used under the Public Works Act of 1981 and in the case of Maori land some additional requirements apply under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is it appropriate for Transit New Zealand to be threatening and humiliating a humble family over a period of 6 or more years in seeking it to dispose of a family homestead on Maori freehold land for the purpose of widening State Highway 2 in Tauranga? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Threatening and humiliating behaviour is not tolerable and the member would be welcome to raise the issue with me. Indeed she could have raised it in the primary question—I would have had a decent answer for her. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister concerned that the Public Works Act has been used by Transit New Zealand and its predecessors to acquire thousands of hectares of land against the owners’ will and to hold it for decades and does the Government have any plans to limit the time for which Transit can hold land that has been compulsorily acquired but not used? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the first part of the question is no I do not have any concerns; that is why we have a Public Works Act. But I do think that an issue raises its head from time to time when land is held for many decades in some cases and not put to use. I think there does need to be a better process for returning that land to the original owner. 
Tariana Turia 
: How would the Minister address the statement that the whanau must be no better or worse off and take into account that this is the only family land that this family has left—or is this just another land confiscation that tangata whenua must accept from this Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not have any idea what sort of land the member refers to because she has given me no notice of it. If it is fee simple land then it will be treated through the Public Works Act. If it is multiple-owned land then it will also require a process laid out in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993 the decision under which is I believe appealable to the Maori Land Court. 
Police—Former Commissioner 
8.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was she advised by the Attorney-General that a letter had been sent from the Attorney-General to then Police Commissioner Peter Doone’s lawyer on 12 January 2000; if so what was the purpose of that letter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes the letter set out the ministerial concerns about the Government’s ability to retain confidence in Mr Doone as Commissioner of Police and offered Mr Doone an opportunity to respond. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she not accept that her obligation following the Attorney-General’s letter was to preside over a proper process to determine whether the Government had confidence in the highest-serving officer of the New Zealand Police; if so why did she sully and undermine that process by leaking material about Mr Doone to a national newspaper especially when the assertions she leaked were wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There was a proper process and the Government’s course of action was in no way impacted on by any media reporting which had of course been ongoing since early December. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she consider her behaviour in providing incorrect information to a national newspaper right in the middle of a ministerial consideration of Mr Doone’s future as police commissioner to have been appropriate or ethical and was not her anonymous verification designed to publicly kneecap Mr Doone? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not believe that incorrect information was provided. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Attorney-General’s letter outlined that Ministers were considering public perceptions of Police Commissioner Doone’s actions and can she tell the House precisely what she expected to achieve from her encouragement of the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 story about Mr Doone if it was not to actually shape public perceptions in relation to Mr Doone? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The issue of perception was specifically addressed in the report of the Police Complaints Authority. It was that on which the Attorney-General would have based her letter. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the Attorney-General’s letter of 12 January 2000 in which the point is made clearly that one of the questions that was being addressed was public perceptions of the commissioner. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Defence—Budget 
9.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What recent decisions has the Government made on defence spending? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced details of the Defence Sustainability Initiative totalling $4.6 billion over 10 years. It is the fourth stage of a systematic approach by this Government to restore the capability of our Defence Force after it was shamelessly run down throughout the 1990s. This major initiative will enable defence to move forward secure in the knowledge that it has the long-term funding required to meet the country’s defence and security needs. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has he seen any other reports on defence spending? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Many. Among them I have seen a number of reports from Dr Brash. In one he is reported as saying that the defence budget should be increased by 10 15 or 20 percent or by $100 million or $200 million. In another report he admitted that he had no defence policy at the moment but said that he would reorganise the money anyway. That funding reprioritisation as he called it would presumably come at the expense of health or education. Today that man said that the Government’s announcement of a 44 percent increase may not be enough. Frankly the only conclusion New Zealanders can reach is that Dr Brash and National have no policy—and on that performance they will not need any. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As entertaining as the Minister may be for the House I would ask you to consider some of the comments he made towards the end of his answer. If it is to stand that he can make highly political comments like that then we would expect a degree of disorder in the House to follow and indeed questioners to start making highly political comments in their questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister should confine himself to his own responsibilities. He went a little off track towards the end. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have a specific Speaker’s ruling 145/5 which is an exact example of what we have just seen from the Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As I ruled the Minister did in answering the question go outside his responsibilities so he was out of order. I thank the member for his assistance. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I withdraw and apologise for any deviation from the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister for that. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that he could find the money for necessary Defence Force improvements without increasing the overall level of the defence budget if he phased out the naval combat force the frigates that currently chew up $538 million or over 30 percent of the current defence budget and that that course would be particularly useful as we have much better boats the multi-role vessel and new patrol boats coming on stream? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have not done the maths on that because it is not the Government’s policy so to do. It was the previous National Government that made the decision not to have the third frigate. However I apologise. It is this Government’s policy to have a well-structured balanced Defence Force. That is what we are building. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What estimate does the Minister have in the light of yesterday’s announcement about the likely increase in recruitment numbers for each of the armed services and also of any implications for the growth of the Territorial Force? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The overall anticipated growth is in the order of 2000 personnel or thereabouts over the next 10 years. We anticipate a firming of the Territorial Force numbers and then steady growth in the future. 
Families Commission—Former Chief Executive 
10.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How much money was paid to Claire Austin on her departure from the position of chief executive at the Families Commission? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The agreement between the Families Commission and the former chief executive includes a provision that the details of the settlement are confidential. I have conveyed to the Chief Families Commissioner that this settlement and the process that preceded it do not appear to be consistent with the clear expectations of the Government or with the guidelines that the State Services Commission and the Audit Office have developed in relation to the departure of a State sector staff member. A process is in place to work through with the chief commissioner the consequences of his decision. 
Judith Collins 
: Does he agree with John Tamihere’s response to a question over whether New Zealand taxpayers have a right to know what Claire Austin was paid and why she left when he said: “Oh I think so. I think any payment out of the public purse should be made available.”; if not why has the Minister changed his mind in terms of the responsibility for golden handshakes since he got into Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have not changed my mind. I agree in general that “any payment out of the public purse should be made available.” In the case of the Families Commission the fact of the matter is that whatever our view the confidential agreement exists now. However as I have said there is a process in place to work through with the Chief Families Commissioner the consequences of that decision. I point out that under section 152(1)(d) of the Crown Entities Act put in place by this Government confidential payments are something we are disapproving of. 
Heather Roy 
: Has the Minister asked for an explanation from the commissioner given that the current Prime Minister when in Opposition promised that Labour would stop golden handshakes saying: “I’ve had a gutsful. I don’t intend if I’m Prime Minister to have to sit there and suffer one humiliation after another because of a culture of extravagance which has been allowed to grow in the public sector. Whatever is in there and hidden we want out.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Prime Minister was absolutely right. Yes I have discussed this with the Chief Families Commissioner and yes he understands exactly the Government’s position. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the Crown Entities Act which he referred to previously when the annual report is tabled it will be clear what the amount is? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is the case. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Was the Minister in receipt of any reports or advice before this incident or has he been in receipt of any since of other parties in this House with strong views against the Families Commission that are simply using this incident as a further opportunity to bag that necessary body? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen reports that the National Party has an aversion to any independent advocacy on behalf of New Zealand families. After what it did to them in the 1990s it is no wonder it does not want that kind of advocacy. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What initiatives has this Government put in place that are in keeping with the mission of the Families Commission which is to further the interests of New Zealand families? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is heaps. I will give just a few examples: Working for Families which put $1.1 billion into the pockets of 61 percent of New Zealand families; Family Start which has been expanded each Budget; paid parental leave which was introduced under this Government; the Families Commission itself which has been established to advocate for the interests of families; the Well Child programme within the Ministry of Health; Child Youth and Family Services’ funding increase of over 50 percent since Labour became the Government; and we have committed ourselves to 20 hours per week of free early childhood education. I could go on but I know that members want me to stop. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister stand by Helen Clark’s statements when in Opposition that a Labour Government would “abandon the culture of golden handshakes” and that: “we are making commitments on which we will deliver. We are accountable to you.”; if he does will Dr Prasad lose his job over this issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes we do stand by the statements made by the former leader of the Labour Opposition now Prime Minister—absolutely. That is why there has been a change in legislation; that is why the Auditor-General has issued his statements; that is why the State Services Commissioner has made clear to State servants what they must do; and that is why we are working through this issue with the Chief Families Commissioner. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister give this House an assurance that the departure of the chief executive of the Families Commission will not disrupt the work programme of the commission? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have received an assurance from the commission that this will not disturb its work. The commission is well advanced on its key research programme the first aspect of which will be delivered by the end of June. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In light of the point of order I made earlier—and this one is relevant to this question which is why I am raising it now—I think this is a very serious matter. I lodged a written question to the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the answer was due yesterday but I have received none. In fact it was the very same question that the National member Judith Collins asked in her primary question. As I said the answer to the written question is overdue. I just refer to Speaker’s ruling 145/3. The second sentence in that ruling is I think pertinent: “If the Speaker feels that a Minister is trifling with the House the Chair can permit a further question or questions to be asked.” I believe that the Minister was trifling with the member who asked the primary question. I believe that he is trifling with me in not answering the four questions that I asked on this matter of the chief executive of the Families Commission. I ask the Chair to consider now granting me an extra supplementary question—one of which I have already asked the Minister but he has not responded to it—above and beyond the number of supplementary questions that ACT is entitled to today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: So the member is seeking leave to ask an extra supplementary question? 
Heather Roy 
: No I am not seeking leave. I am asking you as Speaker to make a ruling to give me an extra question as  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 make provision for. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My understanding is that the answer was due yesterday. Is that right? 
Heather Roy 
: Yes that is correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister should take note to respond to that question immediately. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member will have her answer by the end of the day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. The assurance is given so there is no supplementary question. The member will get the answer to her question today. 
Neonatal Unit Wellington Hospital— 
Staphylococcus Aureus 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How long after the detection of the new particularly aggressive gentamicin-resistant strain of the  
Staphylococcus aureus 
 superbug in the neonatal ward of Wellington Hospital was she advised of the outbreak? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I was informed last Thursday by Capital and Coast District Health Board—after it had spoken with the parents of the babies of the situation in the neonatal intensive care unit and the infection control action plan was already in place to eradicate the gentamicin-resistant strain of  
Staphylococcus aureus 
. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has the Minister sought an explanation as to why Wellington Hospital failed to inform parents with babies at the neonatal unit about the existence of the aggressive superbug or even to inform parents such as Maree Hood that their baby had died from an infection caused by the superbug; does she agree that the failure to do so was both deplorable and unethical? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I received a report from Capital and Coast District Health Board within a day of asking for it. To add to that in terms of communication with the parents all parents were contacted. They were given the appropriate information and I understand that the families of the babies affected feel that they were fully informed. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the aggressive nature of the deadly superbug which is said to defy normal infection control procedures and has infected more than 37 people why did the Ministry of Health keep the outbreak under wraps for more than 6 months and inform the Minister only last week; and would she not have expected to be alerted much much earlier about such an aggressive outbreak as would all the parents in the unit during that time other hospitals community laboratories and other neonatal units? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is incorrect. It was not the Ministry of Health that informed me it was Capital and Coast District Health Board. The board informed me through its clinicians that managing and handling outbreaks of infections in neonatal units is part of its daily routine and that it undertakes the highest level of infection control which is up there with the best international practice. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question asked why the outbreak was kept under wraps for 6 months and whether the Minister would not have expected to be informed earlier. I would appreciate it if the Minister would answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to address the question? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If the member looks at her question she will see that she asked me why the Ministry of Health kept it under wraps. I said that I was advised by Capital and Coast District Health Board. I then went on to say that the hospital undertook normal practice. There are often outbreaks of such bugs in neonatal units around the world and New Zealand is no exception. It was handled as part of the hospital’s usual routine. When there is a case it does not constitute an outbreak. The member is incorrect. When the bug was first found the unit immediately changed its infectious control techniques. It carried on testing changed its infectious control techniques and has managed this infection as it would be expected to. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister saying that she is quite satisfied that she was not informed until last week by Capital and Coast District Health Board—or for that matter by the Ministry of Health which one would have expected to be fully informed of this outbreak—of an outbreak of this sort of seriousness? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I am for the reason that I have already given in two answers and for the reasons that were given by microbiologists and by other paediatricians around New Zealand last week when they said that this is very much their daily job in terms of infection control. It is not something that they tell the Minister of Health about every time there is an outbreak of any bug within a neonatal unit—they get on and manage it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why do we not have enough neonatal beds in New Zealand so that a unit can be closed down when there is an outbreak of such an aggressive and highly resistant superbug as happens with serious outbreaks of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in adult wards and when will the Minister respond to the national review of neonatal units that found last year that crowded and stretched neonatal units are endangering babies? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: At any time of any day we know exactly how many neonatal facilities we have in New Zealand. Yesterday we had seven spare beds. There was no reason to close the unit down completely because when proper infectious control mechanisms of international standard are used units do not need to be closed down. Situations can be managed through a system of coding—red orange and green. Capital and Coast District Health Board has handled this situation with that method. I have the latest figures on the cases. One can see the improvement that has occurred through the use of that sort of method. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that an expert panel report dealing with superbugs recommended more than 6 years ago that the Government set up a comprehensive national surveillance and monitoring system of antibiotic resistance in humans and animals to assess how prevalent antibiotic resistance is and to enable rapid response to outbreaks such as this; and why 6 years later has her Government still not acted on this recommendation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the first thing I need to do is correct the member. She calls this a superbug. There is no such classification of bacteria. Secondly this bacterium is not resistant to the antibiotics used to treat the infection that caused it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a very specific question about whether an expert panel had recommended setting up a surveillance system and why nothing had been done about that. The Minister has not responded and I would appreciate an answer to that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. I listened really carefully and it was addressed. This is another example of the questioner not getting the answer that was desired. 
Police—Former Commissioner 
12.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she advise the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 to hang tough and continue their investigations into Police Commissioner Peter Doone after the publication of their 16 January 2000 story as claimed in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 this week; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is impossible to recall specific words used in conversations of more than 5 years ago. I should note though that I had no reason to discourage the  
Sunday Star-Times  
from following a story it had been reporting on since 5 December. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister specifically deny to this House urging the  
Sunday Star-Times  
to stick to its story after the Commissioner of Police Peter Doone had threatened suit on the newspaper; and given that it is her honesty that is in question now why will she not table the reporter’s notes that she says her lawyer has—what has she got to hide? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in the primary answer I had no reason to discourage the newspaper from continuing to follow a story that it had been reporting on since 5 December when it was quite clear that there were different accounts of what people had said in the incident. It is also worth pointing out that a Police Complaints Authority report found that Mr Doone’s behaviour was undesirable and a police report found that it was inappropriate. With regard to the latter part of the member’s question given that further litigation is being proposed it is simply not appropriate. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister with the benefit of hindsight understand that without her encouragement and active support the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 would not have felt able to run the article criticising the Commissioner of Police Peter Doone and does she wish to express regret to the House today for any of the actions she has taken regarding this matter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. As the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 lawyer has said I was not its source. The newspaper had many sources within the police. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Student Allowances—Numbers Receiving Allowance 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Nandor Tanczos requesting a debate under Standing Order 373. The member cites three releases of information as contributing to a need for an urgent debate relating to the number of people receiving student allowances. The accumulation of information in regard to an issue is not itself a particular case of recent occurrence. I refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 152/6. The application is therefore declined. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. This bill builds on the framework provided by the existing legislation providing a fair comprehensive and equitable accident compensation scheme that is responsive to the needs of claimants while maintaining a responsible approach to fiscal and levied costs. The bill continues to progress towards making the scheme more responsive to claimants’ needs by simplifying cover and streamlining processes for medical misadventure by making weekly compensation entitlements for the newly self-employed fairer and by improving claimants’ access to more comprehensive social rehabilitation. 
The primary purpose of the bill is to implement the new category of treatment injury which replaces the existing medical misadventure provisions in the current Act. No longer is there a distinction between medical error and medical mishap. Claimants do not have to demonstrate error or show that their condition is both rare and severe. The new cover provisions provide that treatment injuries are simply ones that result from the treatment. Punitive faultfinding is also removed from the processes of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Instead the bill directs the organisation concerned to examine how a treatment injury occurred. This will foster a learning environment for health providers and organisations and will help to prevent adverse medical events in the future. 
Changes to the medical misadventure provisions also support claimants to make claims. The changes facilitate processes by providing for claimants to be informed of the role of the Health and Disability Commissioner in investigating complaints about the standard of care provided. The new provisions also encourage the cooperation of the health sector in participating in the claims process and to provide necessary medical reports and advice to ACC promptly. The bill helps to maintain the safety net by requiring ACC to report information to the relevant professional body if it considers that there could be a risk of harm to the public. 
These changes are the result of an excellent consultation review in which the Government worked together with key stakeholders and the public. 
I place on the record my particular thanks to my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel for her work in setting up this review. The review was a three-stage process beginning with discussion of the issues with stakeholder groups then public consultation on the issues and possible solutions followed by further consultation with stakeholder groups as a result of the feedback received on the options for change. As a result a wide consensus is held on the direction that the new provisions provide from almost all those involved in the process including health practitioners medico-legal experts claimants and others. That is the best example of high-quality public policy process and interdepartmental work I have seen. 
The bill also provides fairer methods for calculating weekly compensation for people who have moved into self-employment. Income from other work undertaken during the income year will now be factored into the calculation. This will provide more certainty for people moving into self-employment that accident compensation entitlements will be fair during that transition period. In addition the bill provides the Accident Compensation Corporation with the discretion to provide certain rehabilitation entitlements that previously have been prohibited by the legislation. This will help seriously injured claimants lead independent lives by enabling greater individualised responses to their needs. 
During the consultation process the Health Committee received 163 submissions on the bill. Many submissions expressed support for the amendments to the medical misadventure provisions with many commenting favourably on the removal of the current faultfinding role of the Accident Compensation Corporation the potential for faster resolution of claims and the extension of rehabilitation and compensation to all those who have a treatment injury. Many submissions also noted that the new provisions relating to treatment injuries will operate more fairly and will bring personal injury from medical incidents into line with other injuries covered by the scheme. 
The bill returns to the House with a small number of technical amendments relating to treatment injury. Amendment to the definition by replacing the phrase “personal injury caused by treatment or treatment injury” with the single term “treatment injury” will prevent any misapprehension that there are two types of cover. Also the exclusion provisions for treatment injury and to whom the existing medical misadventure will continue to apply will be clarified. 
I have already released Supplementary Order Paper 348 which sets out further amendments that I intend to move in the Committee stage. This includes an amendment to clarify the policy intent around funding attribution of claim costs for work-related gradual process disease or infection from the ACC employers account and an amendment to provide for later decisions about which account will fund lump-sum compensation for permanent impairment caused by gradual process disease or infection. The Supplementary Order Paper also includes minor technical amendments to existing parts of the bill such as allowing the movement of the definitions of treatment providers and health professionals out of the legislation and into regulations to occur singularly or in groups in order to ensure administrative efficiency given the timing of the bill; allowing the 2005 levy regulations to be amended without the usual consultation process to include private domestic workers in the employers account in respect of levies; clarifying that the provisions for calculating weekly earnings for self-employed and shareholder employees apply to claims for weekly compensation on or after 1 June this year; specifying that the provisions that allow ACC the discretion to provide entitlements where that is not permitted under current legislation have no retrospective effect; and in allowing those parts of the bill that are currently scheduled to take effect on 1 April 2005 to come into effect later. 
I appreciate the work done by the Health Committee and I welcome its report. I particularly thank all those involved in the preparation of this bill and those who took the time to make submissions. I commend the bill’s progress to the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The National Party supports this bill but I must say with some reservations. On hearing the Minister speak just now I can say there are a lot of things we agree with in relation to that Minister. The National Party believes in a fair system of accident insurance. We believe in a comprehensive system of accident insurance and we also believe in an equitable system for accident insurance. But where we differ from the Government of course is in the area of choice. We believe that New Zealanders should have a choice of insurer. We believe that New Zealanders should have the ability to make decisions about who provides accident insurance for their businesses and organisations and that is what we do not have in this legislation. We have choice removed from a very important part of New Zealand life. 
The National Party has always supported a no-fault system for accident insurance like most within this House. Since 1974 that system has been the way of providing accident insurance within this country. But we have seen the removal of choice for many businesses so that they do not have any ability to go out and identify which organisations would provide them the best services for accident cover injury prevention and things like that. 
We continue to support this bill because it makes an important change to the accident compensation system in the area of medical misadventure. The system we had in the past required people who were victims of injuries as a result of medical treatment to find fault in the first instance but then also to prove who was culpable before they were able to access cover. Often that process was very time-consuming and difficult for all involved and the faultfinding investigative systems that had to be put in place did not work well either for the medical profession or for those people facing injuries. I think there is a smoothing in this legislation—an introduction of the same standards for medical misadventure that we have seen in other areas in respect of accidents. This bill will allow people who have suffered from unexpected injuries as a result of their treatments to have the same standard of cover as any other New Zealander who has had a workplace accident. So we support the no-fault system and we support the changes that have been made to the medical misadventure area. 
I suppose that many members on this side of the House will have faced a number of constituency problems and concerns in this particular area so we will go on from here by ensuring that those people will not have to go through a very difficult process of trying to find fault with the medical profession before they have the same standard of cover. That is not to say that we will not continue to look for fault where fault needs to be found. If the issue is to do with medical negligence or is the result of poor practice that will still be picked up on and investigated. But the issue in the legislation is that those people will be able to get cover for their injuries under the same circumstances as other New Zealanders who have faced more easily defined accidents such as falling off ladders etc. 
In terms of this bill a lot of the changes are very technical changes but in the bill there is a key difference between the parties—a really defining issue between the National Party and the Labour Party. National is a party that believes in choice that believes that the private sector should have the ability to provide certain services where they can be of value and that believes that the State is not necessarily the only provider that can supply this kind of service. Certainly in the area of accident prevention education the State is not the only provider that can undertake that sort of educative process. 
We believe that it is important to have a system whereby all New Zealand workers are covered—and not just covered but where everybody is covered fairly in the event of accidents taking place that do not allow them to continue to work. We believe there is a comprehensive system that covers a wide range of accidents and injuries that face all sorts of New Zealanders in the various vocations they are involved in. We also believe in a system that provides cover in a very cost-effective way and rehabilitation in the event that those accidents take place. 
But one of the things we believe in which goes further and which the Labour Party has a closed mind to is the idea that employers should be able to choose their insurers just as they make decisions in every other aspect of their businesses. There is no reason that the State has to have a monopoly on the accident insurance area. It does not have a monopoly in other areas of insurance and it does not have a monopoly in other areas that the Government is not involved in with regard to accidents. 
So in this case we think that there are opportunities for choice. This party stands on the side of choice and we believe that when it comes to provision for New Zealanders people working and people who face all sorts of accidents in their various vocational areas there are different solutions in the accident compensation area. I think that the Accident Compensation Corporation goes a long way to provide many good programmes when it comes to the education of our people but it is not the only source of preventive education. It can not be the only source for accident insurance but I think that the Government certainly has the blinkers on when it comes to this area of insurance. The Government feels in this case—and I think it is ideology that is driving the Government—that it has to dominate this area. This Government nationalised a lot of businesses that had invested in the area of accident insurance. It basically went in and marched over Kiwi businesses that had gone into the accident insurance area and that were or early indications showed that they were doing a very good job. 
In terms of where to from here we have some reservations about some of the technical details which we will go into during the Committee stage of this bill. But I think that what we will see from the speeches that follow will be a demonstration of whether parties are in favour of New Zealanders making choices about their own lives or whether we have the nanny State Government-knows-best idea coming from the Labour Government and we will have no choice and no ability to make business decisions. The Government will provide one option which will be the only option. So there will be very little room for innovation in this accident insurance area. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to this bill and I would like to personally congratulate the Hon Ruth Dyson as the Minister for ACC. This is the third bill on accident compensation that we have had since we came into Government in 1999 and it is beginning to reshape the whole of accident compensation to those Woodhouse founding principles that we really believed in. Those principles were about community responsibility through education and awareness of reduction of injury and comprehensive entitlement—and we mean comprehensive entitlement. I wonder whether the previous speaker who talked about the principle of choice of insurer is aware of the HIH debacle in Australia where insurance went belly-up and left people with no cover whatsoever. That is the risk that we are not prepared to take. 
Real compensation is a big issue for us. This bill starts to deal with the issues of real compensation and it does allow for administrative efficiency. The administrative efficiency forms around the principle where practitioners and claimants themselves used to have to talk about fault and “rare and severe” medical injuries. As constituent MPs we dealt with desperate accident compensation claimants who were waiting sometimes years until they achieved entitlement to accident compensation while they waited for reports from specialists and reports from hospital providers. The gap was simply too long and all of us felt that. This bill is now taking away the definition of “rare and severe” injury and replacing it with a definition of “treatment injury”. It is something that medical practitioners and public health service providers are absolutely delighted about. 
This result comes about as the Minister has said because of a very robust consultation phase. We talked to providers of health-care services. We talked to clinicians who found it particularly difficult and did feel that they were being punished for having to prove that they had not done anything wrong during a course of treatment. That requirement has gone now and with the no-fault approach and the treatment injury provision in this bill clinicians do not need to hide or duck for cover and they do not need to call Sedgwick’s Ltd or their indemnity insurers to seek advice about whether they should have admitted liability even though they knew that something catastrophic had happened with the outcome for a patient. Now they feel so much happier about this treatment injury provision. It takes away that punitive environment that prevailed in the health field. 
Peter Brown 
: For 5 years. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: No—it was for at least 10 years because I used to deal with all the complaints against practitioners that came to our district health board or our Crown health enterprise. The poor old practitioners used to hide in fear. They used to bring their lawyer to a meeting when we were simply talking about what went wrong whether we could avoid it happening in the future and what we needed to do to systems and education in order to prevent that catastrophe happening again—even if it was something as simple as joining up anaesthetic systems so that they worked efficiently. We could not get practitioners to come to an environment that was legally safe and that did not lead through a pathway through the courts. Now there is an environment where they feel that they can participate in continuous improvement. That also links into the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act which was passed in 2003. This bill adds on to building an environment where clinicians feel that they are valued and that they can speak up quickly when an error occurs and where patients can receive due and appropriate compensation for their injury. 
This is a marvellous bill and as a select committee we all agreed on it. There were some minor technical amendments that we did not agree on. I was very happy to see a definition of “acupuncturist” come into this bill although other parties felt a bit differently about that. I thank those members on the Health Committee who know about health. Dr Paul Hutchison knows about that environment in which he used to have to practise and in which he was very nervous about anything going wrong and then wondering where to go to receive professional support as a practitioner. It was nice to have his support there and I thank the member. I thank the other members of the committee such as Heather Roy who also knows a lot about health systems management in this country. I think that we worked very well as a committee. I would also like to thank the committee clerk and supporters of our committee work which went very smoothly. 
The Supplementary Order Paper was released by the Minister very early so there were no surprises. That is how this Minister has dealt with accident compensation issues and injury prevention issues. I am sure that we will see more improvements made in the future so that we achieve a robust publicly funded system. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak in support of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). New Zealand First believes that there needs to be a stronger insurance component in accident compensation legislation and that claims and compensation for medical misadventure needs to be monitored to ensure that claimants are treated fairly. We believe that the process definitely needed to be streamlined. The system needs to be fair and equitable and to have a no-fault component because it takes away the punitive environment that has reigned previously. Nobody expects to go to hospital for an operation and then leave hospital with a totally different injury as a result of his or her treatment. We are very aware that that can happen. Under the current system a claimant is expected to prove fault by a medical professional who then has to be found to be at fault in order for any compensation to be considered or awarded. This is a very lengthy process and it does not work well at all. We want to see compensation awarded when and if it is needed. 
We realise too that this is a very significant bill with a significant cost for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. Accident compensation is already hugely costly to everyone although we are very aware that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) itself has significant investments right throughout New Zealand. It is to be hoped that this bill does not increase the costs again to businesses and to the self-employed. We do not want to see the costs associated with this legislation being greater than those already anticipated by the Government. I know that the Department of Labour has calculated that the costs will increase by $8.6 million annually and that there will be a one-off transitional cost of $12 million. So we do not want to see those costs skyrocket. 
We are pleased to see that this bill does specify a general no-fault approach to accident compensation for treatment injuries because this is a big step forward. At the Health Committee we heard from many submitters who were totally dissatisfied with the ACC and with the treatment that they had received from the ACC when they were trying to establish a claim of medical misadventure. In most cases the claimants just gave up and did not proceed further. They basically put it into the too-hard basket. The long delays in the process and the stress suffered by the claimant and by the practitioner can be very negative. It is not pleasant to hear stories of people going into hospital with high hopes of having an injury corrected and then coming home with something far worse or more debilitating. Hopefully this bill will assist many of those people. 
The accident compensation law has not been very helpful in the past. It has actually stopped professionals from learning from the mistakes made because of the blame emphasis that previously existed. We believe it is absolutely vital that health professionals be very proactive that they demonstrate that their organisations take the provision of very high-quality service seriously and that when they identify any faults—as inevitably they will—they act very promptly to rectify them. 
We will be most interested in the day-to-day management of the new section 33. We will be watching that area with interest because this section defines “treatment” with the broadest possible scope. It includes treatment diagnosis and even the decision not to provide treatment in a timely manner. So potentially any situation where a health professional fails to diagnose a condition immediately and correctly and then to treat it correctly could be construed as treatment resulting in a treatment injury. That could even apply perhaps to the non-treatment of the thousands of people waiting for elective surgery throughout this country. 
The new section 32(2)(c) effectively ensures that there is no fault on the part of the district health boards as it excludes from the definition of “personal injury caused by treatment or treatment injury” “personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision:”. This is the area where all the debates will arise. 
The 26 February issue of the 
 Listener 
 gave two very good examples that fit into this category. Two women went to the doctor for an examination. In one case the doctor’s diagnosis missed the woman’s malignant tumour and her surgery was delayed for 6 months. If as a result of the delay some treatment injury occurs she will be entitled to compensation. In the second example the woman’s doctor identified a tumour but because of resource shortages she waited 6 months for treatment—about three times longer than is recommended. In this instance the woman has no compensation entitlement because of the legislation’s resource shortfall exemption although this woman had exactly the same treatment experience as the other. There is no mechanism under this new scheme to compensate the victim for such a failure or to assess the competence of the manager who fails. Nor has there been in the past an incentive to improve managerial performance. 
The question of what is a result of a resource allocation decision is a very grey area and we can see why. It is a very technical area that we would like to discuss further in the Committee stage. Where will this end? We can see that lawyers and litigators will be very tempted to take many such cases into the courts and to fight them long and hard. It is really to be hoped that after the new scheme has been put into place the Government will take the next step of investigating how it can remove this unfair resource exemption clause from the legislation as eventually this does need to occur. Any injury that is caused by a failure of resources should be considered a treatment injury and should also be covered under this legislation. 
We would also like to see the acupuncture groups in New Zealand agree on a unified professional body to represent their professional standards so that they can come under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. We discussed this aspect throughout the select committee process. That really has to happen. 
This bill is a step in the right direction and New Zealand First does support its going to the Committee of the whole House. We want to see a better outcome for patients who are disadvantaged by medical misadventure. We want to make the system more streamlined we want to see a better outcome for these people and we want to see doctors actually learning by means of the no-fault component of the legislation. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand opposes the passage of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) for a variety of reasons which I will go into in a moment. First I will just say a word about the select committee process. It was very rigorous although a disproportionate number of the submissions heard came from the various acupuncture groups. There are four main groups in the country. Although many of the groups are working together very well and productively some are not entering into discussions as we would perhaps hope they might. It would be encouraging to see the discussions continue and to see those groups form a united front and as the previous speaker said come to be regarded as one body under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. I think that that would be to the benefit of everyone. As I said the bulk of the submissions came from the acupuncture groups and this took up a huge amount of the time for the submission process. 
As other members have outlined the bill relates to quite a few technical amendments to the original Act but the main reason for bringing this amendment bill before the House was to make changes to the medical misadventure provisions. ACT agrees that in theory the proposed changes to the medical misadventure provisions in the original Act are a good thing. But there will be many unintended consequences I think that have not been investigated fully and that will lead in particular to costing the country a good deal of money. ACT is concerned about the increased costs that will result from the removal of the rarity and severity definitions in relation to medical misadventure and about the likely increase in levies for the earners and non-earners accounts. At the moment they roughly share the cost of producing the funding for people who claim accident compensation. 
The Department of Labour gave us a lot of information. Some of it was about the cost of the bill. As the previous speaker said it is estimated that an annual cost of $8.69 million will arise from the changes to the original Act in this amendment bill with a one-off transitional cost of $12 million. Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) actuaries estimated that in relation to these changes the ACC would accept around 1000 additional treatment injury claims each year with an average fully-funded cost of approximately $9000 per claim. That is where the $8.69 million increase in funding that the Department of Labour told us about comes from. However I have had representations from various health providers who are involved in the scheme as it exists at the moment. 
It was interesting to hear the Minister say there was a high level of satisfaction among medical practitioners about this. Certainly the ones who came to see me not just one or two but quite a substantial group were very concerned about the increase in costs they fear will result from this legislation. I think it is important that we look realistically at the costs to the country. The Department of Labour itself admitted that it would be very difficult to predict the increase in numbers of claims and their costs despite the fact that the ACC actuaries have in fact given us a rough estimate. The department said that it was very very difficult to try to estimate these things. 
The new definition of treatment injury could stimulate a large increase in the number of claims after the bill comes into being including unlimited retrospective claims for treatment injury as long as a previous claim has not been lodged with the ACC. That is something that I think no other member has raised yet—the retrospective nature that can occur. We believe that claims will be made for conditions that are not foreseeable and are not the fault of any party involved but rather the unintended but statistically predictable consequence of normal treatment. That is an issue that the medical practitioners have raised too. Normal treatment is very difficult to define. So there may well be those consequences. 
We are not arguing that ACC coverage should depend on fault but when the scheme is operating at the boundary between sickness and accident—and I will talk about that in a moment—the scheme will be vulnerable. It will be in the interests of patients and health providers to classify complaints as treatment injury. It is just human nature for everybody to want a good outcome for the patients; both the patients themselves and their health providers. When grey areas exist and there is no clear definition the boundaries suddenly become unclear and it is often easy to convince oneself whether patient or professional that somebody qualifies when perhaps the person should not. The removal of the disciplines could mean that the boundary will in practice depend on highly subjective decisions or even—sadly I might say—to some collusion. There is no provision within the bill as it stands at the moment to prevent that. So there may be some collusion with and loss in the integrity of the scheme. I believe that is something that nobody in the House would want to see. 
One of the main reasons ACT is opposing the passage of this bill is the division of treatment and that its funding depends on whether a condition is in fact due to injury or to illness. This is problematic. Anybody who has worked in a hospital setting and I think in particular of orthopaedic wards will know the difficulties that exist and the unfairness—the unfairness that New Zealanders do dislike—that exists between those with an injury and those with an illness. I can think of my own days of working in orthopaedic wards when I would have two patients lying side by side. One would be an older person who had worked right through from a young age had been a productive member of society and paid taxes but because he or she suffered from osteoarthritis and needed a hip replacement was not eligible for accident compensation. In the next bed there was frequently a young fellow who had had a motor vehicle or motorbike accident often of his own causing. There they lay side by side with completely different circumstances but often the same condition yet only one was eligible for compensation Although accident compensation has many benefits and largely removes litigation from the whole equation this unfairness between injury and illness exists in this country. ACT has always contended that accident-based insurance schemes are a very fair way of getting around this problem. 
I would like to back up the point made by the previous National Party speaker that choice is actually very important with regard to accident compensation. ACT contends that choice of insurer for both individuals and employers is imperative to the success of the scheme as it stands. If the scheme were extended beyond that it would manage to get around that barrier between injury and illness. We would like to see a return to the choice that existed for that brief period of 9 months in 1999. Of course when the Labour Government swept into power it swiftly changed the provisions. That was a shame because really it could only be considered as an experiment. There was not time for the changes to be totally absorbed by the medical area. That choice and the competition it provided both to employers and to workers was a very good thing. We saw a drop in the number of accidents and by and large a drop in the amount of claims. That was for the good. We believe that the private sector should be able to compete for this insurance cover. 
So to sum up ACT New Zealand does not support this bill although we acknowledge that the changes to medical misadventure provisions in the original Act in theory look good but we worry about the cost to the taxpayer and we worry significantly about the distinction perpetuated between those people who suffer from a condition and those who suffer from an illness. That distinction is not there. 
I look forward to the Committee stage where we can explore this amendment bill in more detail particularly the proposed costs which are very difficult to estimate as the Department of Labour has said. It is unfortunate to see another Supplementary Order Paper slip in. Submissions cannot be heard on those amendments so the public will not have their say. ACT will be opposing those amendments. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 In general the Green Party like most other parties in the House supports the intention of this legislation to remove fault from the accident compensation medical misadventure provisions to simplify the scheme to make it more efficient and to move away from the punitive system that operated in the past of finding fault when reporting medical misadventure decisions. 
In the past trying to prove medical misadventure often put people through a lengthy stressful process of having to prove that the medical profession was at fault or that what had happened was rare severe and had happened in no more than 1 percent of cases. We always felt that those were extremely arbitrary criteria that were completely unfair. They resulted in very long delays for individuals who were trying to get help at a time when many of them may have been suffering significantly from incapacity and pain caused by the injury. That seemed extremely unfair. I know that it certainly put off hundreds of people—and probably thousands of people—from lodging medical misadventure claims and that it created all sorts of tensions. It created a situation whereby doctors saw every claim as a potential threat to their professional practice and that was very unfortunate. So we do congratulate the Minister on bringing about these long-needed changes to the way that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) deals with medical misadventure. Now when an injury results from medical treatment or medical misadventure people will be treated in the same way as they are for other injuries and we welcome that very much. It will establish a new category for personal injury caused by treatment. 
But like the speaker from New Zealand First we are concerned that the legislation will exclude from personal injury those matters that are solely attributable to resource allocation decisions. We believe that the failure to treat a person for whatever reason should be considered to be a treatment injury and should be covered by ACC. We think it is unfair and inequitable that someone who develops an injury because he or she has not been treated properly by a medical professional is covered by this bill whereas someone who becomes ill because his or her treatment is delayed as a result of resource shortages will not be covered by the bill and will therefore be excluded from compensation under the principal Act. To give just one example of what that could mean a patient who developed a cancer because of treatment delays caused by the failure to diagnose a primary cancer would be covered by the bill soon to become legislation. However a patient who developed a cancer because appropriate treatment was unavailable due for example to a shortage of radiation therapists would not. That does seem to us to be unfair so we will be proposing an amendment to allow an injury caused by the failure to treat a person for whatever reason to be considered a treatment injury. We hope that amendment will receive support in the House. 
As the representative from ACT said there was a lot of concern about acupuncturists in terms of this bill. We continue to believe that it is inappropriate to amend the definition of acupuncturist in a bill that is about accident compensation. We strongly support acupuncturists having one scope of practice and coming under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. We are worried that the amendment to the definition of acupuncture in this bill will undermine progress in that regard and that the changed definition could effectively create two scopes of practice for acupuncturists and is therefore contrary to the spirit of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. But the Minister seems to be assuring me that our concerns will be allayed and we are absolutely delighted to hear that. 
All of us on the Health Committee were incredulous at the degree of antagonism between the different groups of acupuncturists. We could not understand why the different segments of the acupuncture profession could not work together resolve their differences and put acupuncture under one particular scope of practice and under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. Given that acupuncturists as a profession have been trying to get statutory regulation for over a decade we were deeply disappointed that our amendment to allow acupuncture to be put under the scope of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act was turned down in this House. I think it was only New Zealand First that supported that amendment. 
Hon Annette King 
: They weren’t agreed though. That was the problem. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The Minister of Health is saying that the concern at the time—a concern of all of us—was the lack of consensus within the profession. We are absolutely delighted if the Minister is assuring us—and maybe she will just confirm this later on—that there is now agreement within the profession to have one scope of practice and to be brought under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. 
I want to correct for the record a statement in the Green Party’s minority report on the bill. We stated in our minority report that we were “… concerned that the New Zealand Acupuncture Standards Authority offers only a local diploma not one that is national in scope.” We were genuinely confused about that—as in fact most of the committee was because the whole thing became thoroughly confusing. We acknowledge that the New Zealand Acupuncture Standards Authority is just an authority and that the Auckland University of Technology offers the course and administers it even if the personnel involved in both bodies are I think more or less the same. 
We had considered proposing a further amendment because we were so concerned about ensuring there would be one scope of practice for acupuncture and that there would not be in effect two scopes of practice because of this bill. However because of the assurance of the Minister we will no longer seek to make an amendment to that effect. Instead we say how pleased we are that we have finally reached this resolution—and I am sure the whole select committee is because the issue took up a huge amount of time and I think all of us were sick of it and could not comprehend why the two different groups could not sit down and reach a resolution. It is good news that a resolution has been reached. 
Finally we are concerned that an amendment to clause 52(2) of schedule 1 of the principal Act would mean that anyone who has suffered a gradual process injury before April 2002 would not be entitled to lump-sum compensation no matter how clear-cut or apparently justified his or her claim was. Given that gradual process injuries normally have a long period of latency we believe that it is totally unfair to set an arbitrary cut-off date before which such injuries will not be covered and we will seek to make an amendment to that when the bill comes before the Committee of the whole House. 
Other than that we are very pleased with the bill. We think it is a great step forward. It will simplify things and remove some of the climate of fear whereby doctors were always worried that a medical misadventure claim would be brought against them. It is a very stressful business to try to prove over long periods of time that something was a medical injury that happened only to less than 1 percent of cases. All of that was frankly foolish and we are delighted that this bill will change that. We are very pleased to support the bill. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). It is a bill that seeks to tidy up the medical misadventure provisions of the Act so that these provisions become consistent with the rest of the accident compensation scheme. Currently we have two categories of injury: medical error and medical mishap. This is confusing and unhelpful because the current provisions are predicated on establishing blame in regard to the practitioner or the health provider involved. 
The problem that this creates is that Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) clients have had lengthy waits for the process of blame to be settled. Once that was established their claim was able to go ahead but that process took considerable time. 
With the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and the work of the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner—including the fact that the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act strengthened the ability for hospitals for instance to run safe quality assurance activities for their staff—we believe that health professionals are now well able to be held to account for their competency and their practice and there is now no need for ACC clients to have to suffer in a climate of uncertainty. This means that they can get on with securing the treatment and the rehabilitation they need. 
It has been important for us to make sure that the term “treatment injury” is carefully defined so that it does not end up having unintended applications. We can understand for instance that when people go for surgery there are intended injuries by way of a surgeon’s blade. We have to be careful to differentiate very clearly between injuries that were intended for the ongoing good of the patient and unintended injuries. Over the last couple of years the media has been full of stories about people who have had tubes pieces of metal swabs and all sorts of things left inside them during surgery with the ongoing obvious complications that that has meant for patients. So it was very important for us and we did take some time to make sure we got the definition and the terminology correct. 
The bill also gives additional flexibility to ACC in terms of using its discretion to provide additional entitlements. In relation to decisions in these areas where there is quite a bit of flexibility I can anticipate some angst as claimants compare notes and try to determine why one person has received discretionary payments rehabilitation services or equipment of some kind and somebody else has not. I suspect that the outworking of this provision will need to be closely monitored because it is unable to be reviewed or challenged. 
There is also a change to the way in which weekly contributions are calculated for the self-employed. What will happen is that all sources of income over the previous 52 weeks leading up to the injury will be considered. That is particularly good news for newly self-employed people who often found themselves assessed against the low income their new business was making and really out of pocket and unable to survive on what ACC could pay them. So that is a really positive move. 
Other speakers have mentioned the issue of acupuncturists. It was intended that the definition of acupuncturist would be extended so that a greater range of providers could be registered with ACC and able to claim accident compensation payments. The problem that developed was that the new group being included was not recognised by the groups currently recognised as accident compensation providers. 
The Minister has reassured us that all is well and near completion and I hope she is right because what concerned me a little bit with this bill was that there was an attempt and I do not think it was intentional to use this bill to achieve an outcome that was really only possible under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. It is not an easy thing to come to terms with. For instance we were given briefings about the number of organisations that currently consider themselves acupuncturists the number of practitioners that each group has registered with it and the kinds of qualifications each group requires. The range is quite considerable and I can see the problems the group was having. However I do believe that it is definitely the job of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act which has set up the legal mechanism so that any health practitioner group can become registered to find commonality between the different disciplines within their own discipline and put out a set of qualifications and scopes of practice that they will recognise. 
There seem to have been some real problems in the ability of acupuncturists to work together and if they are making headway on this then we are very very pleased. Often when one is a spokesperson for another party in health one asks oneself: “If I were the Minister of Health or the Minister for ACC what would I do about such an issue?”. I have to say that the frustration I felt on that matter was that I wondered why we were providing accident compensation for practitioners who had not yet reached some sort of agreement under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. If this is about to resolve itself then that is great but I would like to give acupuncturists a time frame and say: “If you cannot reach agreement and come under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act by a set date you are no longer entitled to be an ACC registered practitioner.” 
I suspect that the financial incentive would mean that they would very quickly find some common ground and would get their act together. We are talking about putting patients at risk if we are allowing people who are not competent to practice. We are talking about inserting needles into people’s bodies as a treatment and if they get that wrong they could create a whole set of other problems. It is really important that we call for this group to get their act together. Certainly I was concerned that there was an opportunity for this legislation to act in a counter-productive way to the recently passed very good Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. 
We are very keen and very happy to support the second reading of this bill. We look forward to the Committee stage and working through the Supplementary Order Paper of the Minister and those proposed by other members on the committee. I congratulate those who have worked with us on the Health Committee on this matter. I think we worked extremely well on this bill. There was a genuinely good intention around the table to get it right. We look forward to its passage. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to support this well-endowed bill. It certainly is an improvement in relation to access to accident compensation. We have heard people wax lyrical at length about how people who have been attending counselling sessions at the Accident Compensation Corporation get frustrated. The bill speeds up cover decisions and encourages a culture of learning and improvement amongst health professionals. It reduces delays—not that there are many—and it improves patients’ safety. But I think the key issue I want to bring to members’ notice is that this is the third accident compensation bill since this great Labour Government has been in Parliament. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). I must compliment Parekura Horomia on his very short speech. It was excellent because of its shortness I believe. 
The National Party will support this bill because of the clear difficulties with the current regime of medical mishap and medical error which is unfortunately very confusing and unfair on patients. However we do have reservations about this bill and those that are particularly important are the financial ones. I see Dr Cullen over there representing this lackadaisical Labour Government which does not care about quality health spending and which we know has great worries about lack of productivity in the health sphere. Here we have another bill on accident compensation—the third one as was said by Parekura Horomia—brought in by the Labour Government and it did not even have ready a financial impact statement. Since then during the select committee process we had a rough stab at how much it will cost. The stab is about $10 million. I predict that the cost will be considerably more than that. Once again we have a Labour Government that is just not worried about quality spending of scarce health dollars. Nevertheless I must say that the select committee worked well under the chairperson Steve Chadwick. Essentially its members were in agreement as to the need to pass this bill. 
It is important to talk about the other reservations that we as a National Party do have about the State monopoly of accident compensation which provides little choice. There is no doubt that when the legislation came in in 1998 that allowed choice of provision premiums came down rehabilitation efforts were increased enormously and efforts at prevention in a whole range of fields were markedly improved and fortunately that caused the Accident Compensation Corporation to take notice and improve. But undoubtedly as with all State monopolies there is every chance that with time it will become once again inefficient. There is no doubt that by its nature there is no individual risk rating. The monopoly tends to conceal real incentives and it also tends to conceal real problems. 
However I think most New Zealanders have accepted the loss of the right to sue although as a constituent MP I find that among the most poignant—and not infrequent—submissions I get are those from people who have had a terrible time with the Accident Compensation Corporation. They have had horrendous injuries and unfortunately the provisions that are available do not cover them fairly. It does happen time and time again. However I think there is consensus in New Zealand that the system prior to 1974 was a lottery. As I understand it something like 5 percent of those who were injured and went through the courts finally came up with an award and it was years and years later before they did. In modern-day Boston for instance I understand that people who are subject to this sort of accident go through a legal lottery. The figure is about 5 percent but the difference is that the payouts are ridiculously out of perspective—often in the tens of millions of dollars. There is no doubt that worldwide accident insurance has gone berserk. I understand that Rugby School was seriously thinking of stopping the boys from playing rugby because of the fear of being sued by parents for accidents that their boys might suffer. 
There is no doubt that in New Zealand we have agreed that a no-fault scheme does on the whole with the checks and balances produce a workable system that is reasonable. But there are occasions when because of the fact there is no right to sue gross injustices do occur. I think it would be very useful in the future for parties to think about how we can address those rare and exceptional circumstances where an unfairness happens. 
I note that the Government’s review on this bill did not include the private sector. The Insurance Council was not asked for a submission; nor were other individual insurers from the private sector. However there were a large number of submitters and there was wide agreement that these provisions should be addressed. 
A couple of points are worthwhile mentioning. Firstly medical mishap criteria are arbitrary and often bear little relationship to the circumstances of the patient resulting in claimants unfairly missing out on cover; and secondly the medical error criteria require it to be established that an individual practitioner or organisation is at fault and that is clearly at odds with the no-fault system. I know that in my own practice there were quite crazy anomalies in this respect. If for instance during the course of a hysterectomy ureters were damaged or injured which is not unusual and if the practitioner had a rate of injury of less than 1 percent it would be regarded as a rare event and the patient could seek compensation through the accident compensation system. If on the other hand the practitioner had a high rate of injury then the patient could not seek compensation. Clearly two patients side by side can be treated differently by the system and that has to be sorted out. 
I note however that the review of the medical misadventure provisions noted that the Accident Compensation Corporation cover decision and the requirement that the corporation must report individual practitioners involved in accepted medical error cover claims as well as patterns of medical mishap claims to the relevant registration authority resulted in health practitioners’ reluctance to participate in the claims process. With the new Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill this will not happen so often. What is hugely important however if the medical error option is taken away is that the professions take on the responsibility to ensure that they are very vigilant with their quality assurance regimes with their continuous quality improvement and that they participate in them extraordinarily vigilantly. Just recently the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association produced an excellent report of all the morbidity that had occurred with hip operations over the last 5 years. This was an excellent example of a profession being prepared to take on quality assurance on a continued basis and going into the future. If this bill is to work well it is very important that pressure is maintained on the professions to continue with high standards. 
I must say that the acupuncturists are in a bit of a shambles. I agree entirely with Judy Turner that it is up to them to organise themselves into a unified body that takes on a professional attitude towards quality assurance towards education and towards being a collegial organisation that can be addressed by the competence assurance legislation. 
Yes National members do support this bill but with some reservations. It does address some important areas of medial mishap and error that have been unfortunate for patients right around New Zealand. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a very brief call on this bill. The debate this afternoon has been interesting and very constructive but I do want to point out to the House that since the Accident Compensation Corporation regained its monopoly it has reduced levies. Accident compensation is an area that sometimes attracts a lot of misinformation in the reporting of it. I do not know why Opposition members want to put out incorrectly worded press statements but never mind; that is their wont. The average composite levy now stands at $1.21 which means that under the system in New Zealand it is still less than half the cost of the average levy in the Australian private system. So our accident compensation levies are very attractive compared with those of our nearest neighbours. Of course we did not suffer the dreadful situation caused by the collapse of HIH in Australia which left many people uninsured. Many of us remember the disaster that befell many innocent people in Australia upon the collapse of that company. So competition privatisation is not always able to deliver the nirvana that some people like to promise. 
This is a good bill. It is the third accident compensation bill since Labour has been the Government and we continue to make excellent progress. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to respond to the honourable member who has just resumed her seat. She gloated on what the Government has done in terms of accident compensation. I can tell members that it has taken a backward step in quite some significant measure. If she does not believe me she should talk to a few accident victims to see whether they think accident compensation is the be-all and end-all that she seems to think it is. 
I have to tell the honourable member that if an employer wants to get fixed-income insurance for his or her employees or a self-employed person wants to get fixed-income insurance the corporation will tell them to go and talk to the private sector. 
I would like to respond to a few of the comments that my colleagues in other parties have made. First of all I say to the Greens—are they still here? 
Keith Locke 
: Yes. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh they are. If the Greens are serious about producing a clause to rectify the situation that arises when a patient is not treated because of lack of resource—in other words the patient does not get treatment in hospital or by a doctor and gets worse—and if the Greens are serious about wanting to produce a clause to make that a treatment injury then I am pretty confident in saying that New Zealand First would look at it in a realistic manner. My colleague Barbara Stewart raised the matter in her contribution earlier and the Greens obviously have taken it up. They have said they will produce a clause that will address the issue and we would look at it fairly reasonably. 
I thought Judy Turner particularly towards the end of her speech made some very good remarks about acupuncturists. I wrote them down; I thought they were very relevant points. She said they should be getting their act together if they want to be covered by accident compensation. That sits very comfortably with me. I have not discussed it with my colleagues but I am almost certain it would sit comfortably with them. But why does not United Future take a lead on this? They are propping up the Government. Why do they not say to the Government that this is a worthwhile action to take? Let us get the thing done. We should not stand here and make hollow noises to the House. I have to say that that sat comfortably with me; I think the member should show a little bit more gumption and go along and put a bit more pressure on the Government to do something along those lines. 
I am absolutely disappointed by ACT and National. They have put dollars ahead of patients. Heather Roy said that this will cost $8.6 million annually— 
Heather Roy 
: I never said that. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member gave the impression that it would cost a lot more than that—I think she referred to transitional costs of $12 million. The National Party spokesperson made reference to a $10 million cost. I was not on the Health Committee so I do not know but I presume that it will cost somewhere along those lines as indicated by the Department of Labour. ACT and National seem to think that it will cost more. 
The ACT member said she had spoken to some doctors medical clinicians or what have you. I have not—not on this bill—but I have spoken to a few patients and accident victims who have gone through the hospital system and have come out much the worse for wear because of an accident that occurred in hospital. One lady in particular who came to see me—I knew her some years before when she was fit and well—could hardly walk. She is permanently on drugs and she said that that was a result of a stuff-up—my words—in hospital. 
I can tell members that if we get people like that then we should have legislation like this. The sad thing about this legislation is that it should have come into being 5 years ago when the Government came into power and changed the accident compensation legislation. It should have ensured then not now in 2005 that medical misadventure was encompassed by the legislation. 
At that time New Zealand First put a strong case to Government Ministers to address this sort of issue. It is a very serious issue. As I understand it a person working in a hospital is covered by accident compensation legislation but patients going in are not—until this bill goes through. They have to prove medical error or medical mishap and quite often they are much the worse for wear and do not have the ability wherewithal and goodness knows what else they need to prove that there has been a stuff-up in a hospital as a result of some medical treatment. 
This legislation pleases me no end. There is still much to do on accident compensation. I take the point that the honourable member from the National Party made that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has a monopoly. I think he said that it is not very flexible. I add that it has little or no discretionary power in dealing with individual patients and that it fails in many respects to deal with social issues. 
There needs to be a degree of competition in the system. Competition breeds efficiency cost-effectiveness and initiative. There needs to be some form of competition in the ACC’s workplace insurance regime. New Zealand First will in its policies be releasing in due course exactly how that can be achieved. 
I just want to spend a few moments talking about Supplementary Order Paper 365 because I am quite intrigued by it. I received it only today. It states in the explanatory note that it will “provide for funds in the Employers’ Account Residual Claims Account and Self-Employed Work Account to be applied to meet the costs of entitlements for certain personal injury caused by work-related gradual process disease or infection:”. I thought: “Great stuff! We are actually recognising a person who has had an accident but who is then told by the doctor that the backache or whatever has happened because he or she has arthritis or some other such disease that the patient did not know he or she had until the accident happened.” I thought that this bill was meant to cover that. But then I noted that new clause 28A applies when the employment task giving rise “to that personal injury was performed or occurred before 1 July 1999;”. That is before the Government came into power. That is 6 years ago. The funding for this has come about in the last few years yet it will apply only to people who had their accident 6 years ago. 
There is something wrong there. This Supplementary Order Paper should have gone to a select committee for that very reason. New Zealand First will support it because again we recognise it as a move in the right direction but it is not enough. There are people suffering badly as a result of an accident and it adds insult to injury to find out that they are not covered because of gradual process or something like that. They cannot work so they lose their income. When it is taken into account that the legislation the Government passed in 2000 provides for compensation for a person injured whilst committing a crime the House will understand why New Zealand First gets so het up about these sorts of loopholes in legislation. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time.  
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a second time. 
Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2004/05 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations and information for the 2005/06 financial year in respect of those Votes and Offices of Parliament.  
Very briefly this is a special procedure followed for Offices of Parliament to ensure their independence. The Officers of Parliament Committee considers the appropriations and makes recommendations. I then move a motion in the House and if the House agrees that then becomes the appropriation for those offices. That ensures therefore that the Minister of Finance does not operate in effect a political control over the budgeting of those offices. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will be supporting this motion. I was on the Officers of Parliament Committee that looked very closely at the appropriations. There are just a couple of points I want to make concerning this report. 
Firstly I draw the House’s attention to the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General’s proposed retirement plan. The retirement plan was based on the 2004-05 Budget round submission in which the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General indicated it was investigating its eligibility to be part of the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme. Circumstances prevented the office from becoming a member of the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme so a separate retirement savings plan was created in September 2004. This plan replicates with two minor exceptions the terms and conditions of the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme. 
Those exceptions were firstly that members of the current Government Superannuation Fund scheme are entitled to join the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General’s plan but would not be eligible under the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme. Secondly the scheme does not create any obligation on the office to increase the employer’s contribution beyond the initial 1.5 percent. The State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme commits all member employer organisations to increasing their contribution in line with the overall scheme. The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General cannot make such a commitment as Audit New Zealand is required to fund its employer contribution from fee recoveries. Any increased contribution across the whole of the office including Audit New Zealand can be considered only in light of its ongoing and sustainable affordability. That was the case that the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General put up. 
Our committee disagreed with that and said that there was no foundation for it and that the funding provided for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General’s retirement plan should reflect the funding that would be available under the State sector scheme. It was very clear that we disagreed with the case put up by the office. The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General is entitled to depart from the policy of the State sector scheme. We considered that the cost of doing so should be met from existing funding and should not be treated separately. So we recommended an appropriation of $97000 GST inclusive for 2004-05 and the out-years to fund provision of the office’s retirement plan to all employees except those who are members of the Government Superannuation Fund. That was where we departed from what the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General asked for at the time. 
I also bring the House’s attention to the Office of the Ombudsmen because there was much discussion about what was happening about the office’s prison investigation support. If we look at the background of the prison complaint investigation support we see that in 1995 the office was resourced for three full-time prison investigators to enable it to undertake more focused work dealing with prison complaints and incidents in custody such as deaths and specific concerns from inmates. Then a regular plan of prison visits was instigated where each institution is visited on average nine times each year to supplement direct demands from inmates in the specific inmate-related incidents in penal institutions. Since then we have seen a huge increase in the demand from prison inmates for such a service. In the report from the Office of the Ombudsmen it is noted that the number of complaints received from inmates has increased significantly from 760 in 1994 to 2598 in the year ended 30 June 2004. That is an average of 866 per prison investigator. Those numbers are conservative as all telephone inquiries of complaints are not recorded. So there has been a huge increase in prison complaints and the office is expected to provide a service for dealing with them. 
The issues one needs to consider are that prison investigators are specialists in their particular field that their workload is both high and demanding in the number of complaints required to be actioned and that they have considerable and growing work stress relating to the constant need to deal with many difficult and very often unreasonable individuals. There are some pretty substantive statistics to show which prisons the complaints to the Office of the Ombudsmen are coming from. Where we are seeing a huge increase in prison complaints the question has to be asked whether the Office of the Ombudsmen should be handling them? There was a view within the committee that the Department of Corrections should be looking at those complaints. We do not know the nature of the complaints but the demand on the Office of the Ombudsmen is increasing because it is a facility available to the inmates. We ask whether the Department of Corrections should not have some responsibility for dealing with those areas. 
Another issue the office raised was that it also carries out two visits to each of the 40 tertiary institutions throughout the country. So that once again is a demand on the office. There is also an increase in parliamentary requests. As we move into election mode there is an increasing demand from various political parties—all political parties no doubt—and they will be seeking extra support from the office with regards to information they require. 
Finally I will move to the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. One of the areas that we found quite strange was that the office was doing report reprints and was asking for a one-off appropriation of $67000 with GST inclusive for the year 2004-05 to meet the costs of additional print reruns. The question that comes out of this is why it is not user-pays. If someone wants a report after the initial runs are done why should there not be a user-pays system in place whereby money can be sourced in that area? 
The other interesting point is the increased baseline funding of $400000 that has been recommended. The increased funding should allow the office to expand its capacity to address Resource Management Act issues which have been increasing over the period of time as well. Last year the office had 150 complaints under the Resource Management Act so there are some issues there. The increase in funding was recommended by the majority in Committee. National is happy to support the appropriations and the Government motion. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are supporting this report on the alterations to the appropriations for Audit New Zealand the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I have been representing the Greens on the Officers of Parliament Committee which is a committee that works very well. We clearly support the adjustments for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The office does a tremendous job and needs a bit of improvement on its current baseline. As the committee members agreed the office has put out some very effective reports. We had quite a bit of discussion about how to get those reports out into the community more effectively. 
One of the important reports that has come out over the last year is called  
Growing for Good: Intensive farming sustainability and New Zealand’s environment 
. It is about sustainable farming and the problems of the degradation of the environment and in particular of waterways as a result of intensive farming particularly dairying. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment brought out in that report the importance of getting agriculture to be sustainable not just to have a nice environment but also for the economic interests of farmers. As water quality declines so effective dairying declines. The commissioner wrote in that report that the application of nitrogen fertilisers to land has gone up 160 percent in 6 years. If we are to protect our waterways that is not sustainable. Another issue is that nitrogenous fertilisers are produced by using oil-based products. The oil is getting more expensive and our farming may become more expensive in the future if we do not take that in hand. 
As a result of the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Fonterra and various other agencies bought into a Dairying and Clean Streams Accord a few months later. The accord is yet to be fully implemented but the idea is that the dairy companies the dairy farmers and the Government are working together to try to get cleaner water and cleaner lakes and to have a much more sustainable system. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has an ongoing role to monitor that. The Greens certainly support the increased provision in this report. There is a provision for report reprints—and the  
Growing for Good 
 report may have to be reprinted. It is of interest not only to New Zealanders but to people in other countries. 
The international links of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment are very important too because if one wants the best practice in a commission like this one has to maintain those overseas links. The committee was a bit distressed that the overseas study tour which was planned by the commissioner to check out the evolution of thinking on environmentalism and sustainability had to be postponed because the commissioner did not have enough money. So we recommended that the commissioner be given another $15000 to enable that study tour to proceed and hopefully that recommendation will be passed today. 
There is also another provision of $400000 to maintain the capability and capacity of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. When one reads back through some of the work the commissioner has done one can see that it is very current. A lot of the questions that he has addressed are ongoing issues that we as a society and as a Parliament are addressing. For instance in last year’s annual report there is discussion of vehicle emission controls. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment like the Greens was very hopeful that this Government would address the question of emission controls. 
The report states: “A vehicle emissions’ screening policy is also to be phased in over the next two years with standards to be set based on vehicle age and recognition of the emissions capability of older vehicles.” Unfortunately we have learnt over the last week that the only track that the Government was going down on vehicle emission controls at the time of warrant of fitness tests has fallen over because it is deemed to be too expensive and too inaccurate. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Nonsense. You’re determined to misrepresent it. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The Minister is calling out but I see that the Auckland Regional Council in a statement in the last couple of days has also expressed some concern that there has been such a delay in this area. We will certainly be working with the Minister and the Government and hopefully getting advice from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on how to proceed with this a bit better and how to take in some of the best practice overseas. Perhaps when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment goes overseas on his study tour one of the things he could look at is how vehicle emission controls work overseas so that we can build on other people’s good work in Europe and places like that where they do good testing. 
The other issue that is very current in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is the whole question of the Albany to Puhoi motorway. He played quite a role in that. As he pointed out there was a big problem with adverse effects both on the environment and on some of the native bush and wetlands. He was rather disturbed that Transit New Zealand had advised him that road tunnels were perhaps not the best way to go. The report states: “I was particularly concerned about this line of argument as it removes tunnelling as an option for New Zealand even where it may have clear environmental social or economic benefits. I subsequently urged Transit to develop a more explicit policy process for evaluating roading developments that may involve tunnelling.” He states later on that he was pleased to report that Transit has since reviewed the tunnelling options and on 6 August 2004 announced that there would be a tunnel as part of the plan. So I think that just shows the importance of having that provision in the appropriations in order to enable the capability of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to be maintained. 
There was a previous speech on the Office of the Ombudsmen about the extra $126000 that has been put into prison investigation support with $191000 being added in the 2005-06 year. The increase of prison visits from 760 to—in 2004—2598 is quite dramatic. I disagree with the National Party speaker that perhaps that means the Department of Corrections should take more responsibility for that and take a load off the Ombudsman because the increase in the number of complaints shows deficiencies in the prison system. There is the whole history of the “goon squad” and hopefully the legacy of that is being rectified now. There is the court decision whereby a number of prisoners have gained compensation because of their mistreatment in solitary confinement. I know from my own experiences in visiting Ahmed Zaoui in Paremoremo prison that he suffered abuse of his human rights in that respect too. 
So there is certainly a need for the Office of the Ombudsmen to continue its considerable role in that area although there is now talk in Parliament of establishing a prison inspectorate. If that inspectorate were independent it might take some of the load off the ombudsmen which would be a very good thing. There are 1300 Official Information Act requests that the ombudsmen have to deal with and the average time taken to fulfil an Official Information Act request is 69 working-days—which is quite a long time—so if we want to reduce that we have to resource the Office of the Ombudsmen properly in the way the committee has suggested. As the previous National Party speaker suggested it is in the interests of parliamentarians too who generate a lot of those requests. 
There have been only 15 requests under the Protected Disclosures Act a statute that the Ombudsman is responsible for helping to implement. That may be indicative of some problems with that legislation. People have to go over all sorts of hurdles before they get to the Ombudsman and that may put off some people who wish to whistle-blow. Perhaps the Office of the Ombudsmen could enlighten us as we go down the track as to whether it is working as it is supposed to. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future supports the Government motion in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and the vote for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I take the opportunity to make a few brief comments about Vote Audit. 
Recently I was privileged to be in London as part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seminar. During the time I was there a very important commission the Commission for Africa was announced. That commission devotes a lot of time to figuring out ways to reduce poverty in Africa including the write-off of debt for those nations that are now so indebted that they have no way of repaying their debts to the international community. The central issue that came out of that was the issue of governance. When I heard about that issue my thoughts immediately went back to events such as those in relation to Te Wananga o Aotearoa that we have had here recently in New Zealand. They really emphasised the same point: that governance is now a very key issue in the distribution of funds from a large entity like the Crown to smaller entities such as non-governmental organisations and in the way they apply that money. It brought home to me how important that is so I am therefore delighted to see in the draft plan for the next year that the Auditor-General intends to look very deeply and analytically at the whole area of governance and at how we can improve that in New Zealand. I think we need to take that on board. 
The second thing that emerged from that seminar for me to do with the role of the Auditor-General in particular was that we are very privileged in New Zealand to have an Audit Office with such high standards. That is not the case in many parts of the world and we do indeed need to maintain if you like our world-leading position in relation to the audit of all the Crown’s expenditure. 
This is a very key vote and with those remarks I signal again that we will support the motion. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Just briefly I suggest to the Green member Keith Locke in so far as emissions from motor vehicles are concerned that he comes along to the Regulations Review Committee a very exciting committee that sits at 8 or 8.30 on a Wednesday morning as we are looking at that particular issue at this very moment in terms of the regulations that are before us. 
In relation to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment I tell members that I read with interest the article from Dr Morgan Williams on the protection of the Waitakere Ranges. He made the very good point that the draft bill is imprecise. I notice that even the Mayor of Waitakere has said that the bill needs to be worked up. But the important point made by Dr Morgan Williams was that some aspect of compensation should be considered and I hope that in any working up that point is considered as well. If we want to quote the Great Charter the Magna Carta of 1215—and I notice Mr Copeland’s comments—we see there is some provision even in the Magna Carta for the protection of persons’ property rights and that particular right goes back to 1215. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I know. I am just quoting the member’s bill. I have read the explanatory note and the reference to the Magna Carta. 
The other point I make in relation to Dr Morgan Williams is that the phrase “death by a thousand cuts” actually goes back to the Sung Dynasty of about 905 AD. It is not a phrase that Dr Williams coined; it relates to a person being killed by a thousand cuts. I would say on behalf of the people who live in the area bounding the Waitakere Ranges that they are the people being killed by a thousand cuts—by various forms of Government taxation and various Government measures that are preventing them from enjoying their properties. If this bill were passed—a bill that affects the outskirts of the ranges the land leading up to the ranges—we would see the people themselves dying by a thousand cuts rather than the ranges. 
Everyone in Auckland supports the ranges; there is no one who does not support them. It is an Auckland right—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not sure whether Mr Prebble has been to any of the meetings; he has shown a total lack of interest in those meetings. The Government should keep its sticky hands off the Waitakere Ranges. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the debate on Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Those are all Offices of Parliament and I think it is appropriate we debate those matters. In the Officers of Parliament Committee I actually moved a number of reductions in these votes some of which were accepted by the committee. But in relation to others I was unsuccessful. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Shame. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Thank you. As the Minister of Finance has said it is a shame. It was possibly as a former Minister of Finance that I did move those reductions because the motion still concerns substantial amounts of money and we should look at it just as hard as we look at the vote of any other Government department. These Officers of Parliament perform what I would like to think is an important role but I am concerned about whether they are doing so. 
I will start first with the ombudsmen. New Zealand was one of the earlier countries to have the position of an ombudsman. When we analyse what the ombudsmen do today we see that over half the work is about dealing with prisoners’ complaints. Now here is an Office of Parliament set up to look after complaints by members of the public in dealing with the civil service yet what are the ombudsmen doing? They are dealing with complaints from citizens who are in jail. One may say that citizens in jail are entitled to make complaints if they have not been dealt with properly. That is true but within our prison service and under our—I think namby-pamby—Corrections Act there are a whole string of ways in which prisoners are entitled to make complaints if they have not been treated properly. But that is not enough for prisoners. They are entitled to pick up their freephone and ring the Office of the Ombudsmen. So many prisoners ring that office that we are being asked by the ombudsmen to put in what is really a call centre so that New Zealanders who are in jail can ring them. Well naturally they do that. One of the penalties of being in jail is that there is nothing to do so prisoners who have nothing to do decide to complain. 
What do prisoners complain about? Apparently one of the terrible complaints which the ombudsmen get a lot of is that there is a lot of thieving in prison. Well why are we not surprised at that? We have put the crims in jail and they pinch from one another so they ring the ombudsmen. What are we doing? We as a Parliament are voting the ombudsmen more money. Now I said to the Chief Ombudsman at the committee and I will say it here that that is not what his office was set up for. The ombudsmen should not be taking complaints from prisoners; the ombudsmen ought to be saying to prisoners that they should complain through the procedure this House has put in place for them. We did not set up the Office of the Ombudsmen for that reason and that is one of the reasons why I will vote against this motion today. I am opposed to it and I say that the ombudsmen need to send a signal to prisoners. 
The second thing that worries me about the Office of the Ombudsmen is that one of the things the ombudsmen are supposed to do is to enable law-abiding citizens to have their official information requests actioned. The ombudsmen are supposed to keep an eye on the Government. Does the Chief Ombudsman do that? No he does not. The Chief Ombudsman is the most gutless one that we have had. 
We have Ministers—Mr Maharey in particular but also the Minister of Education—who now say when MPs ask for information under the Official Information Act that they think it will cost a huge figure to be able to provide the information. That may even be true as they are so incompetent! Those Ministers say that if members of Parliament pass over a great part of their salary then they may make the information available. Now that is contrary to the spirit of the Official Information Act and we would expect the Chief Ombudsman to be on television every night severely criticising Mr Maharey and Mr Mallard for saying that. But does he criticise them? No he does not. He is too busy taking telephone calls from people who are in jail. That is what he thinks his job is. Well it is not. His job is a much tougher one than answering the complaints of rapists and the like who are concerned they can no longer get a good view from their prison cell. The Chief Ombudsman’s job is actually to hold Ministers accountable. That may be uncomfortable but it is what he ought to be doing. 
Then of course we come to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who wants us—and unfortunately I persuaded the committee of this—to chop down more trees in order to print more copies of his reports which he tells us no one will actually buy but which people want. 
Well the demand for free services is infinite and if we are prepared to let the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment send his free report to anybody he can think of of course he can justify his position. Then when he has sent them all out—and as I say the demand for free copies is infinite—he will then say that there are a lot of people who want to hear his views on various things. Maybe they do and maybe they do not. But if people at least had to pay a nominal amount for the reports—perhaps just pay for the cost of the paper—I predict that we would find that the demand for the commissioner’s reports was much lower than he would have us believe. 
I believe that if each one of these departments which grow in number every year was to come in front of us it would tell us that the demand for its services was such that it should have more staff office space and money. However I would also draw the attention of the House to the fact that a lot of the work that the Officers of Parliament do is actually the work of MPs. When I first arrived in this House there were 87 MPs and now there are 120. I would like to think that the extra 30 members of Parliament are doing some work. If they are it would follow that we would probably need fewer of these various parliamentary officers. It seems to me that at some point someone has to get up and ask when the whole process comes to a halt because we could put up an argument for any amount of expenditure on things like the ombudsmen and suchlike. 
I know I must sound like a Minister of Finance again but I was extremely unimpressed by the Audit Office coming along and saying to us that although there have been superannuation requirements that have been met for the whole of the civil service the Auditor-General has decided that they are not adequate for his department. That is a very very serious matter for a head of a department to do because he is actually saying the superannuation requirements that have been given to the rest of the civil service are unfair. If he thinks that he ought to make that case properly. But what the Auditor-General has done is to take money we have given him to audit the Government accounts and he has decided to give it to some of his staff. I think that is absolutely wrong. It has been my experience as an MP that no one is trustworthy with his or her own superannuation. MPs have been through that lesson and the Audit Office is no better than us. 
Who guards the guardians? Well in this case the Auditor-General is our guardian and I express to him my strong disapproval of that move. The committee did not agree to approve that extra funding. The Auditor-General can still provide it but what is outrageous is the way that he will do so which is by not doing the job that he is actually employed to do because one cannot spend money twice. I am very critical of a very important senior Government servant like the Auditor-General—I think that he cannot have thought the issue through—deciding to reach a different sort of superannuation arrangement for his staff from the arrangements we have for the rest of the civil service. If the whole civil service system is unfair—I do not think that it is although anyone could make an argument for better superannuation—then that matter ought to be taken up on behalf of the whole of the civil service. It should not be done in this cavalier way. I think that it was an abuse of the Auditor-General’s position. 
Accordingly we will vote against the whole report in order to indicate that view to the Officers of Parliament. They should set a high standard and should not be the first to jump over for extra money. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to and Address adopted. 
Members’ Bills 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee that had the support of all parties I seek leave for there to be a ballot to draw two members’ bills tomorrow. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I apologise to the Minister but I could not quite hear what he was saying. Did he say that everyone has agreed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes; Ken Shirley agreed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: God we’re getting soft! OK. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I take it from that there is no objection? Thank you very much. There will be a ballot to draw two members’ bills tomorrow. 
Appointments 
Judicial Conduct Commissioner 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 7(2) and clause 1(1) of schedule 2 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General to appoint Ian Leslie Haynes ONZM of Auckland as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner for a term of 5 years commencing on 1 August 2005 having noted that the Attorney-General advises this House in accordance with section 7(3) of the Act that the Chief Justice has been consulted about the proposed appointment. 
The principal Act was passed last year but it does not come into force until an Order in Council has been passed. My predecessor as Attorney-General received universal cross-party support for the appointment of Mr Haynes as Judicial Conduct Commissioner but he is unavailable to take up the position until late July this year hence the delay in the process. 
Mr Haynes is a very senior lawyer. He has been a partner in Kensington Swan and its predecessor firms for something over 35 years a specialist in commercial property law but also in a range of other areas. He has a special interest in the reform of the profession and professional ethics and was president of the New Zealand Law Society from 1997 to 2000 while the New Zealand Law Society reform model was pushed through with the support of the district law societies. So I think that Mr Haynes is eminently qualified to fulfil this role which is designed to be the first port of call for all complaints about judges in the future. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 On behalf of National I indicate support for the appointment of Ian Leslie Haynes an appointment made under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act of 2004. 
This legislation has been generally in place for almost a year but—and this has been made clear—National members judged that legislation to be a complete mishit and strongly opposed it. There were a number of good reasons for that. The key reason was that the primary focus of the Act was and is a more formal structure for the removal of judges yet we have never ever removed a judge and there is already an established pathway for the removal of judges. That is contained in the Constitution Act in section 23 “Protection of Judges against removal from office” which provides that no judge shall be removed from office except by “the Governor-General acting upon an address of the House of Representatives …”. So there was no need for this legislation and of course if this legislation had not been passed there would be no need for the appointment of the first Judicial Conduct Commissioner. 
Legislation should be remedial in nature. It should seek to deal with a mischief and the short point is that there is no current mischief relating to judicial conduct justifying removal from office. It is interesting to reflect that the Justice and Electoral Committee received advice that it would be within the scope of the bill to provide a range of sanctions falling short of removal from office such as censure public apology or required counselling. But the Labour Government was not prepared to make such changes. Many complaints about judges would not seek the sanction of removal from office; they are complaints that fall well short of that threshold. But the role of this Judicial Conduct Commissioner is to investigate complaints with a view to a process being followed that might result in the removal of such errant judges. Small wonder then that the judges expressed real concern that this was a threat to their judicial independence. 
I do not doubt that there are cases where judicial conduct causes concern to parties to witnesses to lawyers and to the public. But the Act despite its name is not about that at all; it is about setting up a process to remove judges from office. As I have said the Act contains glib references in section 4 to protecting the requirements of judicial independence when in fact it does completely the opposite. 
Who is Mr Haynes? He was the second employer of Simon Power who is the ever-competent senior Opposition whip seated alongside me. But Mr Haynes can probably point to a track record that is even better than that because for a long time he has been a commercial partner with Kensington Swan specialising in commercial property and commercial matters. He is well known throughout New Zealand courts as an expert witness; he gives evidence in property-related litigation matters for instance. I certainly know of his commercial acumen and expertise in drafting and interpreting contracts. He is well known and respected in Law Society circles both in New Zealand and internationally. He is a past president of the New Zealand Law Society and of the Auckland District Law Society. He is it is fair to say the architect of a model for the governance of the legal profession which is contained in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill—a piece of legislation that will probably bite the dust today. So here we have a man with formal legal qualifications matched by substantial legal experience a former president of the Auckland District Law Society a former president of the New Zealand Law Society a fellow of the college of law practice management of the University of Denver a council member of Lawasia and a member of the executive committee of the New Zealand Law Society’s property law section. 
It is possible that on assuming office as the next Government in September 2005 National will look to review this legislation—will look to take a more principled position in respect of judicial complaints and judicial appointments. That might bring Mr Haynes’ short career in this particular office to a close. It would be a happy outcome though to have had the opportunity to judge his performance in this role. 
So it is that National supports the appointment of Ian Leslie Haynes Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit to this high exalted but completely unnecessary station. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposed the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 and we still do not support its principles. We have made it clear that on a change of Government involving New Zealand First this Act ought to be reviewed. However the Act is the law and it must be given effect to in one way or another. The appointment of Ian Leslie Haynes as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner has the support of New Zealand First although whether the appointment will be for a term of 5 years remains to be decided after the outcome of the next election. Mr Ian Leslie Haynes is highly regarded amongst all members of the legal profession and I would say in the wider community as well and he has the support of New Zealand First in this position. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I want to make just a few comments on behalf of the ACT party. We will not oppose this provision but we do have some reservations with regard to it. Although I do not say that the judiciary cannot be subject to checking it seems to me that these sorts of measures have a measure of political correctness. 
I raise this point as well. I am sure that Mr Haynes is an excellent person but it appears to me that his CV lacks court experience. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: That’s so. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Mr Worth tells me that that is so. Well it does seem a bit odd that the person we are appointing to comment about the conduct of judges will do so from the point of view of a lack of knowledge. I assure the House that within the legal profession there is a split between those who operate in the courts—and they are very few; I used to be one of them—and those who do not. Frankly those who do not do not realise what it is like—any more I think than it would be a good idea for many barristers to be doing conveyancing. 
I am a bit concerned. It makes me wonder about this position. If the Government started looking—as no doubt it did—for someone with court experience and could not find someone with court experience who was prepared to fill the position surely that is sending it a bit of a signal that perhaps this is not the right way to go about it. I have some concerns. 
I will express just one more which is more a personal concern than one of the ACT party and fits in with an earlier comment. I think the whole country has too many commissioners and here we are appointing yet another one. 
Motion agreed to. 
Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill 
that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Preamble 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I look forward to making a contribution during the Committee stage on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. The Committee will recall that there has been some debate at various points over different translations with respect to the preamble and the like. In fact a reasonably prolonged discussion was held in the Maori Affairs Committee on that exact point. That is why we see at this point a reasonably large portion of the preamble having been struck out. This is a portion that is largely contained in te reo. It goes on for some pages. Not until we get to page 21 of the bill do we find the new unanimous preamble to be contained in the legislation. I do not profess to be an expert in matters Maori but it seems to me that we as a Parliament have worked our way through both in this Chamber and outside it to ensure that a Maori version of the preamble appears together with its English translation. The portion of the preamble that refers to the conflict in the Eastern Bay of Plenty is contained on page 33 some 12 pages on from the start. 
I welcome the arrival of Georgina te Heuheu to the Chamber to take a call on matters relating to the conflict in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. I am sure that any contribution that she and Dr Mapp will make will dwarf my small contribution in this process. 
There is no doubt that I am in a position to signal National’s ongoing support of this legislation but we will during the Committee stage be raising some issues from time to time that have captured the imagination and the attention of those in the National Party who sat on the Maori Affairs Committee. With that short introduction I welcome the contribution to follow by Georgina te Heuheu. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow on from my colleague and contrary to his suggesting that this will somehow be way above what he has suggested that of course is quite wrong. In the National Party caucus we are all committed to the resolution of historic grievances and so each and every one of us basically— 
Simon Power 
: Who was that member who was known for doing all the work? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is right Douglas Graham basically paved the way in this area. He formulated and developed a treaty settlement framework that has stood the test of time and but for this Government with its tendency to push the boundaries further than what the New Zealand public really want that model is basically in place here in the bill before us today. 
As I say we support this debate as we will be supporting the passage of the bill. Two or three issues arose during our consideration of the bill but by and large one of the issues that caused quite major concern arose in one of the schedules in which the Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty people wanted to have their association with the geothermal resource recorded in the bill. Fortunately the Maori Affairs Committee as a whole decided that that probably was not appropriate—and I will come to the reasons for that in a minute—and that this was to be a new schedule. It is now no longer in the bill because what the claimant tribe wanted can be adequately accommodated in the deed of settlement. 
The reason that this bill I suppose caused a unique difference was that Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty is one part of the total Ngati Tuwharetoa tribe. I am Ngati Tuwharetoa and I hail from the centre of the North Island which is often referred to as Ngati Tuwharetoa the principal part of the tribe. This issue has not arisen in any settlement that we have had to deal with before whereby one has the same stories applying to both ends of the tribe but clearly sometimes the versions do not always coincide. The other issue is that as much as Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty may have wanted to tell the main Ngati Tuwharetoa story and have that put into legislation it was felt by the select committee and by National in particular that that might pre-empt the way in which claims were settled when it comes to the settlement of the Tuwharetoa claims where I hail from and there was no reason at all to be pre-empting anything that might be done in respect of any subsequent settlement. 
So that was one issue and I certainly will talk on that in more detail as we go on with the Committee debate. Another issue arose relative to the geothermal resource itself. We had submissions from the Pukaki Trust in the Bay of Plenty which will be looking to do its own settlement. It actually owns a piece of land in which the geothermal resource sits. The trust had some very clear objection to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty being given a statutory acknowledgment over that resource particularly in so far as the resource sits on land that the trust owns. I think that it does in a way highlight a problem that may or may not arise in the future and which the Government should give some attention to. It is that essentially while a group may indeed rightly lay claim to a particular resource in terms of kaitiakitanga or sense of stewardship over that resource the reality is that it will be the case that others within the same rohe or boundary will also be able to lay a similar claim. 
Where neither of those groups has an ownership stake in the land possibly no problem arises but when one of them actually owns the land through which the resource runs then clearly it is a problem. If I own a block of land and there is a resource—in this case a geothermal resource—sitting plonk in the middle and some other group not my tribe says: “Well we’ve got a stewardship right or a cultural association with that resource we want that recognised by way of a statutory acknowledgment.” I would then say: “Hang on it’s sitting on my land.” How does that sit? We had some discussion on this. We were assured that no one particular group is pre-empted from also seeking a statutory acknowledgment over a particular resource a particular site or a piece of land just because another group already has one. That is what we are told. We have to have faith I suppose. I do not know what will happen if one day an issue arises and we find that the statutory acknowledgment granted to one group somehow pre-empts the other group from also being able to raise his or her particular interest in the resource as well. 
So that was another issue that has been dealt with. As usual we had the issue around doubts about sufficient mandate and doubts about sufficient agreement on the deed of settlement itself. National and I think New Zealand First as well regularly raise the issue of how much efficacy there is in the support of a people for a settlement when one is not getting what one might say would be optimum buy-in and that would be at least above 50 percent. The long-term issue with this problem is that none of us would want to see any of these settlements revisited at some future date because some section of a tribe could come back later and say: “Well look there was only a 48 percent buy-in to the settlement and that wasn’t us we’re part of the balance of the tribe that didn’t agree.” 
So I implore the Minister to be conscious of this issue and to make sure the Office of Treaty Settlements is doing everything it can to ensure increased buy-in both for mandating and for ratification of the Government’s entity and particularly for deeds of settlement. Because what we all want to be certain of as parliamentarians is that once a settlement is completed there are no legitimate grounds for bringing it back to the House. 
Other issues that were raised when we were considering the bill during the whole select committee process were things like the fact we are now translating these settlement bills and having quite a considerable amount of legislation in te reo. That in itself adds a focus for debate but the issue we want to be sure of is that the more te reo is used in legislation the more care is taken by those concerned with putting true meanings into the legislation to really ensure that the Maori matches the English. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of New Zealand First—which as I have said before and will say again is the only non - politically aligned party in this House—to speak on this bill in the Committee stage. I also want to take the opportunity to thank my whip for giving me this time because I know all the people who are caught up in the Auckland gridlock will be listening to this debate. Mrs Rene Peach who lives in Cambridge will be listening as well and I would just like to say tena koutou. 
I want to reiterate our position with regard to the inclusion of the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” particularly where they are set out in clause 14(a)(i)(A) of this bill. During the second reading I indicated on behalf of the New Zealand First members our support for this bill in spite of the inclusion of the words that I have just mentioned. I should say that that actually caused some surprise to both officials and some members in the House at the time. 
Having said that I just want to talk on the preamble and in particular on Supplementary Order Paper 367 sponsored by the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton in terms of an amendment to recital (32) of the bill. The Government-sponsored Supplementary Order Paper seeks an amendment to the English text of that recital. On perusal of the Maori text I note that no amendment to it is sought. I am sure that that does not mean the Maori text is right but in order to ensure there is a true translation of the English text I have proposed a Supplementary Order Paper. This may be seen to be a bit premature given that the Supplementary Order Paper has not been put before the Committee for consideration. However I seek that in recital (32) of the Maori text the words “i waenga te rohe o Kawerau” be substituted for the words “ki Kawerau”. 
Some people may say that that is being just too particular but I think it is important not only for this Parliament but for this nation that the translations of the two official languages should match. I suspect that in the future students of the language will see legislation that has been passed in the Maori language as a learning resource. So I would like to think that the Committee will give consideration to that proposal. Although I would like to see the whole bill written in Maori given some of the occurrences in the recent past when the Maori language has been introduced into previous bills I think this is a small but very important step not only for this Parliament but also for our country in terms of recognising the tangata whenua language of New Zealand. It is very interesting to note as I look across at the Government benches that I am not sure whether there is anyone sitting there who has the ability to speak or understand Maori. It is important that I make these points because when future bills of a similar nature come before the House we will be asking that the Maori language be used. Hopefully it will be used more fully than it has been in this bill so that there will be no doubt in the minds of all New Zealanders that we are a country that recognises and utilises the two official languages—that is Maori and English. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The preamble contains a description of the Compensation Court process that was established to deal with the return to Tuwharetoa of wrongly confiscated land. The preamble talks about how approximately 87000 acres of confiscated land was divided into blocks. The Compensation Court after hearing various evidence decided to return some of that land. It did so by returning a couple of blocks. One block was given to 10 people and one block was given to 13 people. Those awards were made on the basis that those people were the rightful owners and were not implicated in the so-called rebellion. At the time Tuwharetoa considered that the returned land was to be held in trust for the iwi as a whole. But because of the nature of the Compensation Court—the cultural milieu out of which it was developed—there was in fact never any mention of those people holding the land in trust and those blocks were granted to those 10 and 13 people respectively as individual owners. 
The preamble goes on to describe how difficult that was and what that meant for the iwi. In fact it meant the further loss of the land by placing the land effectively under individual ownership rather than collective ownership and enabling it to be on-sold. One of the signals that that shows for all of us is that when those processes by which restitution is made are developed in isolation from the tangata whenua for whom the restitution is designed or when the processes are developed in isolation from the tikanga and the values of the people affected huge mistakes are made. Part of making the mistake is identifying and picking winners and leaving losers. The Compensation Court process established in 1863 was a clear and classic case of the Crown establishing a process without tikanga and consultation then leaving Maori bereft when they were supposed to be restored. 
What I would like to see and be made clear in this Committee tonight is the fact that we are again seeing that exact same process. The process for restitution of wrongs done in the past through Crown settlements and via the Office of Treaty Settlements is again a process that has been established within the cultural milieu of the Government of the time. It does not involve and never has involved any real consultation with the tangata whenua. It is not based on tikanga; it is based primarily on the policy of Governments and the desires and needs of Governments. It is not based on the real justice that should be attributed to the tangata whenua or to the mana whenua who have been wronged whose land has been taken wrongly and who deserve to have justice restored to them. It is just one example of how the same process is again occurring here in the Tuwharetoa bill. 
I refer now to submitters who came to the Maori Affairs Committee such as the Ngati Rangitihi and their story about their attempts to do the best for their own people and to find a way to develop and progress their claims through the mechanisms available to them—established by Governments over time and supported by this Government—like the Waitangi Tribunal and the claims process. I refer to their efforts to ensure that the land within their rohe is protected from the settlements that are occurring around them particularly that of Ngati Awa and of Tuwharetoa as well. The Crown through its settlement process has picked Tuwharetoa as a winner in this regard over this area of land so that Ngati Rangitihi have been unable to secure funding even for their research. Ngati Rangitihi told the select committee that Ngati Awa had received $3 million and Tuwharetoa $1.5 million to help with the research of their claims yet they were entitled only to $200 per witness to help with witness costs and no money to help them with their research. 
If Ngati Rangitihi cannot get support even to research their claim then their losses and the injustice done to them as an iwi within that area cannot be properly dealt with through the Government’s own processes. Therefore they are being robbed of their capacity and of their access to the justice system through the settlement process and through the process of restitution and restoration of lands to the iwi from whom it was taken. We are again seeing Government process being used to pick winners and identify losers which leaves those who are not yet ready to claim those who cannot yet secure funding yet to prepare research in order to pursue their claims and those who are choosing alternative paths to settlement again to be without justice. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I was going to speak on the preamble and perhaps the philosophy that underlies the preamble because it has now become pervasive. It really speaks about the attitudes that the Crown has towards Maori and that perhaps some Maori might have to themselves and their position in life. 
Recital (33) of the preamble refers to the loss of traditional lands through confiscation Crown purchases etc. and includes and I quote directly: “such as the coast and the swamp that traditionally provided food medicine and shelter.” Further on recital (40) refers to the fact that lands had been drained—the drainage of the Rangitaiki wetlands. That seems to imply that Maori are a Stone Age people—that they were at the time of confiscation and are now. We clearly know that that is truly absurd. Yet the preamble almost envisages that. Surely we would recognise—and given that we are lawmakers here legislation and preambles ought to be careful about this—that just as anyone who is a landowner in the modern world seeks to develop the land for economic advantage where it is appropriate and desirable we would reasonably expect Maori to have done the same themselves. 
For instance could it really be considered a loss today that people have lost the use of a swamp for food medicine and shelter? People do not live today in raupo huts made from raupo gathered from a swamp neither do they primarily use swamps for food. In fact what happened right throughout the Hauraki Plains the Eastern Bay of Plenty and many other parts of New Zealand is that those wetlands were reclaimed—admittedly not by the Maori owners from whom they were confiscated but by subsequent settlers—and turned into productive dairy farms which is arguably one of the world’s most profitable uses of such lands. Maori who own such lands do the same themselves; one has only to look at Northland around Ruawai to see the reality of that. We should not make references in these kinds of preambles as if Maori were still a Stone Age people and lamented the loss of resources that a Stone Age people would use. Let us recognise the benefits of developments. In fact the ILO conventions that I know the Green Party is very fond of talk about the right of development. Development does actually mean using new technology. Similarly with the Hui Taumata; it would have had exactly the same values. 
I say to the Government that when it is preparing its preambles let us not have a rose-tinted approach to a past when people lived in a state of nature—if one will—but let us talk about how people really live and how they want to live. Let us talk about aspiration; that would be a lot more relevant and dare I say it would have a lot more credibility amongst the wider community. When the public read about this kind of thing in our legislation—and they do; it gets out there generally—frankly it causes frustration. It causes people to wonder why we are so focused on the past as if it was frozen rather than looking forward to development. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I shall take a short call to respond briefly to a number of points made by members. 
Firstly Dr Mapp’s comment about the preamble and the historical account missed the point that this is an agreed historical account of what was. It records what was lost to the people at the time and arguably records therefore in a sense his point that the opportunity for such development that he talked about was lost to those people as a consequence. So it is not a lamenting of that in the sense of wanting to go back to it but rather simply a matter of recording clearly that that is the nature of what was lost. 
In response to the member from the Green Party who talked about access to funding I think the matter she raised is far more complex than she said in terms of some of the issues within the group of people concerned. But it is important to note that the funding she referred to was not direct Government funding; it was Crown Forestry Rental Trust funding and that does put a slightly different complexion on it. 
To go back to the comments from the first member who spoke the Hon Georgina te Heuheu I have to comment on two points. Firstly on the encouragement of optimum participation and mandating I absolutely agree that through each of the participatory processes everything that can be done should be done to encourage participation but we cannot require that people exercise their choice. As legislators we must be confident that the opportunity did exist genuinely easily and freely for those who are eligible to participate in votes and to have their opinion recorded and heard. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 In relation to the preamble I wanted to take a call to support my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp in so far as he urged that the Government recognise that the preamble was largely the wish of the iwi concerned which is what I took the Minister to say. 
I still think that Dr Mapp had a very valid point. I know from my short experience as an Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to the Hon Sir Doug Graham that the preamble is extremely important to a claimant tribe for the reason that these settlements are important. For nearly 140 years for some of them they have carried this hurt because that is the way a lot of them see it. They suffered this hurt so long ago and have tried for generations to get redress to find some way of securing justice. Basically they see the preamble as giving credence to the hurt they have carried for many years so it is understandable that all preambles will first of all state the history as has been recounted by the claimant tribe but also will probably reflect a lot of the hurt and the sense of injustice that most tribes have carried since the 1860s. Of course that is why we have the preambles couched in the way they are. 
That is understandable and I appreciate why tribes would want to have their preamble couched in the terms that they normally are. But in support of my colleague Dr Mapp it does not mean that the Crown needs to buy into that mode. While it is proper for the Crown on behalf of New Zealanders to acknowledge the injustice because that is what these claims are about—an injustice to sectors of our community; a longstanding injustice to be rectified—none the less I think there is a point to be made that the Crown needs to try to strike a balance and that there is also an aspirational component to these settlements because that is what they are about too. 
Hopefully settlement legislation brings grievances to an end but it also signals the start of a better future. If as my colleague Dr Mapp has signalled he does not see that necessarily in the preamble then I think that is an issue for the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui to bear in mind. In the future they should see whether there is a way of stating the history and imparting the deep sense of injustice that particular tribes—in this case Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty—feel in relation to what happened to them and to their ancestors so long ago couched in terms that we all genuinely hope will signal that this settlement is the start of movement forward. We should not look like we are just mired in the past because of course nobody is—certainly not members in this Parliament. We in the Parliament more than anybody need to ensure that these settlements project a forward-looking view that they lay the basis for forward momentum for acknowledging and giving credence to the hurt that has been suffered by a particular tribe but also signal our understanding—an aspirational signal—that things will be better and indeed things will be different because what we are doing in this settlement is giving a basis on which to move forward. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I found very interesting the thoughtful comments—some of the most thoughtful I have heard on this topic—made by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and Dr Mapp in looking seriously at what many people have regarded as mere formalities. Part 1 is the part with the text of the acknowledgments the historical recital and I was pleased to see that those members took it seriously. I think future generations may well look at this part—and look at it in absolute amazement that we could have a long recital of history going back 140-odd years and that the Crown on behalf of the people of New Zealand is apologising for things that can scarcely be known and for wrongs that are done daily today. 
I draw attention to clause 8(3)(f) in which there is an apology effectively for eroding “the traditional social structures mana and rangatiratanga of Ngati Tuwharetoa” and for failing to “protect Ngati Tuwharetoa … from the impact of these actions”—presumably that means eroding the social structures mana or pride and rangatiratanga of Ngati Tuwharetoa. Well there is nothing whatsoever in the treaty that says that social structures mana and rangatiratanga will not be eroded. 
The treaty said that the protections of English property law would be given to property and those were rights that Maori did not have. Those were concepts of ownership that Maori did not have. It is perfectly in order for the Crown to apologise for confiscating land without compensation for taking rights by fraud or for punishing people who had not rebelled and giving their land away to others. That is perfectly in order but for this Parliament now to be turning round and grovelling because traditional social structures have been eroded is something the ACT party simply will not be party to. 
Traditional social structures may be good they may be bad; they simply are. There will be parts that we all regret to see gone. I regret the loss of the sense of community that I grew up with before television but I do not expect any Government to start apologising for the erosion of the institutions of civil society that occurred because the State started a television service that meant people stayed at home instead of going out. I do not see any reason why the anglicisation of property rights which of course did erode traditional society and the power of chiefs is something to apologise for. In just about every place where that has not happened traditional society has eroded just as corruptly. 
Indeed when the treaty was signed the missionaries would have been very well aware from the crusading investigative journalism of  
The Times 
 of London of just what the traditional power of the chiefs had done in Scotland. Indeed I think that article 2 of the treaty was a direct reflection of concern about the abuse of chiefly power that took for itself the value that should have been available for all ordinary people. The traditional social structure did not protect many of the people who had none of those so-called erosions when it became a new market economy. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I first acknowledge the contribution made by National member the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and her comments in relation to this bill that it is a positive step forward for Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. I also remind the previous speaker Mr Stephen Franks that the Crown is not apologising for the actions he referred to but for the fact that by its actions the Crown was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi—hence the apology. 
I stand also to respond to the amendment tabled by New Zealand First member Pita Paraone. He proposes to amend the preamble by removing the words “ki Kawerau” and adding the words “i waenga te rohe o Kawerau”. That is what we might call a semantic matter in that the English translation means very much the same thing. Why would we add six words when one is sufficient? The reference to Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau is the preferred wording in the description of that particular claimant group and to that end the Government will not be supporting the amendment. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am glad that the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui took a call to respond. The argument he made though that the Crown is not apologising for eroding traditional structures is not consistent with the wording of clause 8(3)(f) which states: “these actions”—referring to the individualisation of title and loss of the use of swamps and land etc.—“eroded the traditional social structures … The Crown failed to adequately protect Ngati Tuwharetoa … from the impact of these actions and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi … and its principles.” My questions are: how where—and what principles? 
There is no definition of those principles. They were weasel words used by this House in a moment of infamy and subsequently the courts have had to try to give them some meaning. The courts have struggled. We have no authoritative statement of what those so-called principles are yet in this provision we see the Crown acknowledging having eroded social structures etc. and then in clause 10 apologising for the matters it has acknowledged. 
Clause 10(4) states: “The Crown profoundly regrets its failure to acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty).” Clause 10(5) states that the Crown “seeks to atone for these wrongs and to begin the process of healing …”. Clause 10(2) states: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi … and its principles.” 
None of us know what those principles are. The Prime Minister when directly requested has never managed to tell us what those principles are. No speaker from the Government has ever told us exactly what principle says that the traditional social structures of Maori should not be eroded. For all peoples traditional social structures evolve. Erosion is a way of talking about it pejoratively but evolution is the action of every human social structure. 
Indeed I suggest that if the Government offered Ngati Tuwharetoa who are living in the Bay of Plenty now an opportunity to exchange their position for what they had then very few would take it up. Who would want to be subject to a traditional social structure in which slavery had only just gone? Who would want to be subject to a traditional social structure whereby the ability to utilise land did not have the reforms or efforts that Sir Apirana Ngata brought to it in order to make collective landholding economically worthwhile? It took a great deal of erosion—or evolution—in traditional social structures to get to the position where people could be confident even that they would get to harvest a crop they had sowed. 
I think it is a disgrace that this Committee is sitting here tugging its forelock and asking where it can sign and when it will vote when those apologies are historical nonsense and are for conduct that has nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty. If that apology had been for the fraudulent procuring of land for the wrongful punishment of people for rebellions they were not involved in or simply for collective punishments when English law required that people were found guilty of individual crimes then it would be something the ACT party could support. 
Instead in clause 10(3) we have an apology for “the cumulative effect of its actions over the generations which have had a damaging effect on the welfare economy environment and development of Ngati Tuwharetoa …”. What blithering nonsense! The damaging effect that would have been the lot of Ngati Tuwharetoa if land had not been individualised if swamps had not been cleared and if people had not been able to participate in the export economy would have been far more profound. 
For New Zealand First to have the ability to trumpet its opposition to the so-called principles and then for us to come across a bill like this that has this Parliament apologising for wrongs we cannot define and for actions we should be applauding in many cases rather than rejecting is to say that this country is lying to itself. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to recital (32) of the Maori text be agreed to: 
to omit the words “ki Kawerau” and substitute the words “i waenga te rohe o Kawerau”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to recital (32) in the preamble be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Preamble as amended agreed to. 
Part 1 Acknowledgements and apology by the Crown to Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) and preliminary provisions 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 1 outlines the purpose of the bill which is essentially to record the acknowledgments and apology given by the Crown to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in the deed of settlement. It also gives effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement signed between Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and the Crown in respect of historical claims. In so far as it gives the outline of the bill Part 1 signals that Part 3 will provide that the settlement of the claims of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty is final and deals with related issues. It is important for the members of the public who are listening to know that the objective of settlement legislation is always to make sure that the settlement of the historic injustice that has been suffered by any one particular tribe is regarded as being full and final for the matters that are dealt with in the legislation. 
Clauses 7 and 8 set out both in Maori and in English the acknowledgments to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in respect of their grievances. This House should never underestimate the importance of this part of any settlement legislation to the tribe in question particularly when a tribe has suffered raupatu or confiscation at the hands of the Crown for standing up for hearth and home so to speak. Those people who are of English extraction and I am one of them as well will understand clearly what that means. There is an understanding that the hearth and home are sacrosanct to the family and that is why I think those confiscations were such an unhappy time in our history. In essence the tribes were basically standing up for no more than their hearth and their home. In other words they were saying: “This is my home. I have a right to stand and protect it.” 
When the Crown acknowledges and apologises for unlawful confiscations it is an important matter for the tribe concerned. Although much is made of the treaty grievance gravy train and the money that is tied up in settlements members must believe that a public apology set in legislation is a huge thing for tribes and in this case it will be no less so for Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. It is basically a recognition by the Crown of the struggles of the ancestors of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. It states that “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” and particularly for the confiscation of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty lands and for the cumulative effect of those actions over the generations. 
I was listening to the member for ACT Stephen Franks. Maori society was built upon the ownership of land—tribal ownership. Once that was taken away there was little chance for the societal structures to remain. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on Part 1 of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill because it relates to the apology. In a way I want to counter the speech made by Mr Franks who was concerned that the Crown was apologising merely for the erosion over time of traditional structures that may have changed anyway as traditional structures do when societies progress and move on. 
However the nature of this apology is that it is based on a specific moment in history when a group of people were traumatised through land confiscation and an accusation of collective guilt. At that point in time a process of the erosion of traditional structures began which can be dated from a traumatic event for which the Crown now chooses to apologise—and rightly so. I think it is wrong somehow to water down the very essence of this apology by saying that that erosion was some sort of natural process that could have occurred over time anyhow because traditional structures in society do change. That is not what we are dealing with here; the apology is about a traumatic event that happened to those people from which we can now date a process of erosion. 
That process could have happened in a different way and in a different manner. Societies do change cultures do change but that is not what is being apologised for here. The apology is for the fact that the people in that group were required to make changes and to have their traditional structures eroded through a traumatic event imposed on them by other people. I think we need to remain supportive of this aspect of the legislation. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I turn to the apologies and acknowledgments set out in Part 1 of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and in particular to the text of the acknowledgments in English. Clause 8(3) states that the Crown acknowledges that the return of land to individuals rather than to iwi and hapu was a breach of its obligations and caused harm. In particular clause 8(3)(e) states: “This was not consistent with customary tenure and made those lands more susceptible to partition and alienation;”. 
I would suggest that in many circumstances—not all circumstances but in many—the collective ownership of land without variation has caused serious problems. It is difficult in a modern economy for people to advance their interests if all their property is owned collectively. The reality is that in the modern economy people do not act as iwi or hapu to a marked extent. By and large individuals are responsible for their own economic welfare. I believe that the Hui Taumata 2005 recognised that by putting so much stress on the advancement of skills—skills that are acquired by individuals. People have to study for themselves in order to gain an education. 
When that theory is applied also to land we are aware that farms are not farmed by large groups; they are farmed by small groups of people—typically individual families. That is why the huge strength of the New Zealand agricultural base has been the family farm. Notwithstanding the fact that there has been an increase in the size of farms the family farm is still the building block of our agricultural success. 
I would suggest that for Maori in part the individualisation of title gave people opportunities. Rather than harming them it actually helped them. People say that it then led to partition and alienation. One of the requirements of a modern economy though is that people can actually sell things and not just retain them so that people can use their resources in ways that suit them. That is not to say that there is not a place for iwi-owned lands. I recognise that. But it is wrong to suggest that all land under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act should essentially be held collectively. That would actually be harmful. Some land may have to be and indeed should be held collectively; a fair measure of it should not be. 
Indeed an increasingly recognised problem is the growing number of owners of quite small parcels of land. That is not helpful but one of the strengths of the partition and individualisation of title is that it enables people to sell and to seek new economic opportunities. I acknowledge that those opportunities were not always available to Maori in the past for a variety of reasons but surely in the 21st century they are. 
As I said in the debate on the preamble those acknowledgments essentially have a Rousseauean view of Maori—that of the noble savage if you will. The view simply does not meet contemporary needs or dare I say it the needs of that time either. Economies and peoples are dynamic. Our acknowledgments and statutes should also recognise that reality. 
What we are often seeing now is land actually undeveloping. One of the reasons it is undeveloping is because in many cases land that was held a generation or two ago by one or two individuals—normally the head of a family or whanau—is now held by large numbers of people. So we are seeing those same farms which are essentially family farms in the traditional sense of that term now being owned by large numbers who are the descendants of those people of two or three generations ago. 
That is actually harming the development of those farms because what they do not have is reinvestment. People are not willing to put a portion of their income—for example a person using his or her income as a teacher—into the development of the farm. Large amounts of money are expended on the administration of what is after all a family-sized unit that may perhaps have 300 owners. It is not efficient; it is not effective. 
We need to acknowledge therefore that it was not always harmful—although in some cases it might have been—for titles to be partitioned and individualised. In many cases that actually laid the foundation for Maori farming enterprise. It enabled a whole lot of Maori back in the early part of the 20th century in the first 50 years to build individual farms and that has laid much of the foundation of the economic strength of many Maori families. Yet today—and I know this from personal experience—some of those farms are going backwards because they are no longer owned by a small number of people; instead they are owned by a large number of people. I noted the proceedings of the Hui Taumata and saw that some of that was recognised which is one of the reasons people are saying we should move on from the Maori Land Court. 
That is one of the problems with the way we are doing treaty settlements. Unlike ACT National is not saying we should not do treaty settlements. We say that we should do them and we want to accelerate them but the way we do them is crucially important. The way the acknowledgments are made should not just reflect the past but should also reflect aspirations for the future. I believe that those acknowledgments and apologies do not embrace the fullness of the task ahead of us. They are too one-dimensional. 
The Government knows it will have more of those settlements to do over the next 2 or 3 months before the election and my request is that it takes a broader view and reflects aspiration and looking forward as well as looking back. I fully understand that both elements are important but I do not see them reflected in this legislation and that is a pity. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill is one of the more important parts of the bill. It lists the acknowledgments and apology by the Crown to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Part of its importance is that it acknowledges the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi—I will just leave it there—and it also acknowledges the confiscations made by the Crown of those lands belonging to Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
I pick up on a comment made by the speaker from United Future who talked about the erosion of traditional structures. During the debate on the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill we heard about an example of traditional structures being broken down and that process was actually supported by United Future. So while on the one hand it is all very well to say that the Crown should not be contributing to the erosion of traditional structures on the other hand neither should this House be doing so. [ 
Interruption 
] Even if it is a deliberate choice by iwi as mentioned by that member it should be a decision only of the iwi concerned. It should not be made by this House or by any other outside group or organisation. That is why it is important to ensure that we do not contribute to the erosion of the traditional structures of Maori; it should be left up to them to make that decision. 
I also make the point that Part 3 “Settlement of historical claims and miscellaneous matters” talks about the settlement being final. New Zealand First supports that but we do not support the premise that in the process of dealing with this particular historical claim we are not contributing to any future contemporary claims that people might want to make. I suggest that there should be some opportunity for that sort of claim to be made in the future. Although we might pat ourselves on the back that this is a historical claim that will have its finality in the passing of this bill there is no assurance that we will not see contemporary claims in the future. 
We also note that there is some reference to the principles of the treaty outlined in clauses 7(2)(c) 7(3)(f) and 9(2) and translated into English in clauses 8(2)(c) 8(3)(f) and 10(2). I understand that amendments are set out on a Supplementary Order Paper to provide that those references be omitted but I restate the position of New Zealand First: if we perceive that the use of the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” affects the operational and functional purpose of the bill then we will certainly support its omission. But I believe and New Zealand First certainly believes that the inclusion of those words in Part 1 does not affect the operational or functional purpose of the bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 A number of speakers have made reference to the position of the ACT party on this legislation. We do vote against these settlement bills but we do not vote against them because we do not want to see settlement of claims for land wrongly and fraudulently taken and for property rights breached—breaches of article 2 of the treaty—we vote against them because they do an awful lot more than that and an awful lot less than that. This particular part is instance of that. I have an amendment that I am hoping New Zealand First will vote for which removes the subclauses that refer to the so-called principles. 
The leader of New Zealand First is making great play—indeed he has a bill on the Order Paper—to remove references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. But then for years since New Zealand First’s leader first realised that ACT New Zealand was speaking the truth when it pointed to the complete lack of definition of and the strife being caused by those references he has joined in that chorus and has demanded definition. Yet New Zealand First has voted for clauses in legislation passed by this Parliament that still contain those references. 
I would have liked my amendment simply to omit the phrase in each place where it occurred “and its principles”. That would have been quite sufficient but my problem was my inability to work out exactly what words referred to the principles in the Maori version. So in the speed of drafting the amendment I thought the safer thing was actually to omit the subclause as a whole. But if New Zealand First simply wants to put forward an amendment to my amendment so that it is only the words “and its principles” that are omitted from each place they appear instead of the entire text of the subclause I would be very happy to support an amendment from New Zealand First along those lines. 
I want to refer also to the comments of Dr Mapp where he too suggested that ACT did not support settlements. We are very conscious that New Zealand as a whole and not just Maori or Maori making treaty claims may have a very wrong idea of what constitutes wealth in a modern world. It is not ownership of land that marks the countries that are rich. The Singapores and the Switzerlands are either amongst the most densely populated the most land-short or the most scruffy and unproductive land areas of the world. There are vast areas of natural wealth that is being under-used. What marks rich countries is almost the opposite of land wealth. It is the fact that as peoples they have had to work out how to be rich without land. I think that these treaty settlements are in fact directing Maori down a very sad path. 
The worst example of a major settlement totally ruining an indigenous people must be very close to New Zealand on the island of Nauru. Its people became rich beyond all dreams of avarice and in one generation not only have they blown it but they have blown their health as well. That is not to say that that will happen as a result of these settlements but it does say that ownership of assets has next to nothing to do with either cultural or material wealth. Ownership of assets as the Bible says may in fact mean the very opposite. It may be harder for wealthy families to ensure that their children maintain the sorts of habits and the willingness to work that constitute true wealth than for those who are poorer. If the Government is going to apologise for eroding traditional social structures why is this Government not apologising for the welfare system that has totally devastated the Maori family? That is not a historical thing. This Government is doing it daily. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: This is another treaty breach. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is an absolute breach. If there was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles because there was a transfer of land into personal ownership what about the breach that means that 70 percent of Maori kids are growing up without a father? What kind of social erosion is that? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to make some comments. Stephen Franks has proposed amendments that provide for clauses 7(2)(c) 7(3)(f) and three other clauses to be omitted. They are the “principles of the treaty” clauses. I can understand why they are there because the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal under section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act is based on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The officials need to take note of that as well. Having sat on the tribunal for 10 years I am pretty much aware of what the jurisdiction is and it is the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So I suggest the reality is that unless a claimant tribe can come and show there has been a breach of the principles of the treaty then its claim will fail. After succeeding on that basis either through the hearings process or through discussions with the Crown it is understandable why that clause referring to the principles of the treaty will appear in the settlement bill. 
Having said that though that clause has clearly become a—what can one say? 
Dail Jones 
: A template. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Well it is certainly a template but it has been a template for some time. I think that what one could say is that that reference has become a bit of a millstone around the neck of this Parliament. That situation has occurred only since the advent of the Labour Government in 1999 because of course that term “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” has been seen to appear in all manner of things since 1999 and the reality is that it does not always apply. National has severe reservations about the inclusion of that statement in legislation—no less in treaty settlement legislation than elsewhere. As I said earlier it has become a millstone because the Labour Government has tried to push it everywhere—absolutely everywhere. It is in employment legislation health legislation and in local government stuff—you name it. The Government has plonked the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” everywhere and it does not apply—it is not applicable everywhere. 
In coming into the new dawn it is basically incumbent upon the Government to think hard about what it has done in this area and to consider whether that is the best way of dealing with the claims. I guess that if something is a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi then it is probably a breach of the treaty itself. I think that is probably why ACT has come out so strongly against that phrase so National would have to support the amendment from ACT. However we do recognise that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi form the jurisdiction for claims to the Waitangi Tribunal and therefore we can understand why the phrase is now part and parcel of settlement legislation. Going forward National has already signalled as has Winston Peters through his treaty deletions bill that that may not be the case in future. But Maori should not be disadvantaged by the removal of that phrase because if something is a breach of the principles of the treaty it is hard to fathom why it would not also be a breach of the treaty itself. That statement is present in a number of clauses throughout the bill and the Minister in the chair at this moment Mita Ririnui should turn his mind to whether it is the proper basis on which to settle claims. There is no harm in thinking about that and it is certainly appropriate to debate the issue particularly since National has raised the issue that it may not be appropriate to use that phrase in these modern times. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First would much prefer not to have the words “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in the legislation but the amendment that has been put forward by Mr Franks wants to delete a whole clause and it is really looking at the matter in isolation. We have to look at all the clauses together; there is a package. We have to go on and look at clause 14 and at clause 15 to understand how it all works. 
Essentially what we have in the legislation are these clauses in Part 1 that relate to an agreement that has been entered into. New Zealand First and I am sure the National Party do not want to go back and say to everyone: “Renegotiate the whole thing otherwise we will not agree to it.” because if we go on to clauses 14 and 15—and I hope the Committee will bear with me—they state that where the expression “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” has been used it is a historical claim. It is something in the past. Then clause 15 states that the settlement of those historical claims is final. So that is the last use of the phrase “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” for historical claims in so far as this particular group is concerned. That is a package. It is completed. 
If I were pleading this case in a civil claim I would say that we do not agree with those principles and we deny that they exist but in all the circumstances they have no effect whatsoever because this matter is now at an end. This bill brings the concept of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in this context to an end. We have to look at the whole package to understand it. I think that is what Brian Donnelly was trying to explain in his way the other night when he followed what Mr Franks had to say on this legislation. 
We do not accept that the words “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ add anything to this but even if they did it is almost irrelevant because this thing is at an end. It is finished now. It is over and done with so what is the point in arguing about it? When we had the Ngati Awa case of course we then had a situation—as my friend and colleague Pita Paraone has explained—where some new groups were created that had never existed before even in the 1985 Maori regulations. We objected to that new breach of the Maori traditions as Pita Paraone was saying to Judy Turner. 
So while we would prefer to see the principles of the treaty not included we accept that an agreement has been reached. New Zealand First wants to see this treaty process brought to an end. The last thing that we want is to have these things going back again for ever and a day. We are satisfied that the way in which the bill has been drafted taking into account clauses 14 and 15 brings it to the end. The words “principles of” are really irrelevant. They do not mean anything. We believe that they mean nothing and as they mean nothing they cannot have any effect on anything anyway. If we look at it in that context they are meaningless. So why argue about something that is meaningless in this particular context where the matter is at an end? We will go along with it in this particular context and situation bearing in mind that for example in a State services piece of legislation or in some other new legislation that is continuing into the future this ends it—this finishes it. 
We will always oppose any new legislation that looks at the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being brought in for future reference. But this settlement is a finalised matter; it is ended and I think that is the way in which it should be considered. New Zealand First wants to bring the treaty process to an end and this is bringing it to an end. I think that people like those members of the ACT party who want to continue moaning and groaning about what Maoris do and what Maoris are claiming become very upset when we do have a settlement because it gives them one less thing to moan and groan about when it comes to election day. We want to see this finished we have set dates for when these matters should be finished and we are pleased that this settlement is being given effect to by Parliament. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I think it is probably a shame for the honourable member who has just resumed his seat that he was not around 140 years ago. He would have been a very good land purchasing agent. He could have been out there basically persuading Maori that what they were getting was valuable and that black was white. It is the sort of sophistry I expect. Here is a man saying: “We need to do this. It doesn’t mean anything so therefore it does not matter if we vote for something that is against our principles. Don’t you worry about it.” That was the snake oil salesman’s logic. “Don’t worry about all those reservation that you have. Don’t worry about the fact that the title is being transferred to the Crown. We will look after you. We will set up reserves.” It is the same kind of “just don’t worry about the detail” statements that got this country into the position where there were differing expectations and where there were such gross breaches of faith. 
We do believe that there should be settlements of stolen property and of property taken without proper compensation. But we certainly do not believe that this Parliament in 2005 should be passing law when it does not know what it means. If there is anything we can glean from what the Rt Hon Winston Peters has said about the so-called principles it is that no one knows what they mean. And here we have a spokesman for New Zealand First standing up and telling us that it does not matter that we vote for four or five references to the so-called principles because we do not know what they mean and they do not matter. Well they do matter. There is simply a question of legislative integrity. 
The member who has just spoken went forward to clause 14. I will not do that but when we look at further clauses we find that kind of legislative drafting technique throughout this deed. We will hear about the so-called Ngati Tuwharetoa values which are spiritual but there is no definition. We do not know what they are. A whole set of statements and mythology—what legal effect do they have? There is a dishonesty about this approach that I believe will condemn future generations to another round of complaint. If we can apologise and pay compensation for eroding the social structures of 160 years ago—and if the senior Government whip Jill Pettis can say that it is completely irrelevant that the social structure of Maoridom is being eroded by the welfare system yet the inevitable individualisation of title 160 years ago is highly relevant—what kind of compensation will we have to pay one day for what has happened to the social structure as a result of the welfare State’s imposition? What will we pay to Maori families who have lost authority over their kids because they are not allowed to smack them? What will we say to the families where kids can go and leave home and give the fingers to their parents because they receive a living-alone allowance—where the State has stepped in and usurped the authority of parents entirely? 
This bill is apologising for eroding the social structure because of land transactions 100 years ago. What a lot of drivel! If there is any apologising that should be done by the Government of this country right now it should be for eroding the social structure of all the people of this country through a welfare system that rewards kids who do not listen to their parents rewards not working and discourages those who do work. For me to hear a New Zealand First speech that tells me not to worry about voting for the so-called principles because we can put it all behind us when in fact the very same words that are used in that apology could well apply in two generations’ time to a whole series of apologies to people for having destroyed their social structure then I do not think that New Zealand First values its vote at all. 
Here is a chance to put a stake in the ground. Here is a chance for those members to say: “We will vote for this settlement but we will omit the three words ‘and its principles’ wherever they appear.” If the Crown has to go back and ask Ngati Tuwharetoa whether it wants to re-ratify this deed without those words it should put it to the test. I would be very surprised indeed if Ngati Tuwharetoa is wedded to those words. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have to deal with some amendments. The amendment in the name of the honourable member Stephen Franks is out of order under Speaker’s ruling 102/4 by Chairperson Simich: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Interpretation 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to make some comments about clause 13 “Meaning of Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty)”. I will just make a preliminary comment. Originally the bill dealt with this on the basis that the claimants or the settlees were Ngati Tuwharetoa. What has happened is that the bill is now properly named the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. That is basically to differentiate the claimants from those Ngati Tuwharetoa living beneath Mount Tongariro. The claimants here the Bay of Plenty families originally wanted the bill’s title to say just “Ngati Tuwharetoa” but the Maori Affairs Committee saw that as being designed to cause confusion unnecessarily and now we have the bill named as it is. 
I now come to clause 13 in which the group itself defines who are to be regarded as Tuwharetoa people. Clause 13 states: “(1) In this Act ‘Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty)’—(a) means—(i) the collective group composed of individuals …” and “(b) includes—(i) the hapu of Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty); and (ii) any hapu group family or whanau composed of individuals …” of those hapu. 
The issue I want to make some comments about is the meaning of whangai in clause 13. Whangai as members will know is a type of Maori adoption where there is a recognition that a child has been taken into the home of a particular family and for all intents and purposes but without the legal trappings of a formal adoption has come to be regarded as being of that family. Some tribes unless that whangai child is actually related by blood to the family who have taken him or her into their home do not necessarily regard that child as being of that tribal entity. 
It seems that Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty have settled upon a definition in clause 13 that states: “ ‘whangai of Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty)’ means a Maori who is recognised as Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) in accordance with Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) tikanga (customary values and practices).” I wonder whether the Minister could just confirm for this Committee and for those who are listening in to this debate whether that definition is limited strictly to whangai who are descended by blood from their original family or whether it includes a whangai child who has been brought into the family and is being brought up by that family and is a Maori none the less but not of that same kin group. 
Pita Paraone 
: Could be Chinese. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The child could very well be Chinese. He or she could be but on the other hand as the provision states “in accordance with Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) tikanga” then surely the child could not be Chinese. But I do not think it is clear and that is why I would ask the Minister to take a call and clarify for us whether that includes Chinese people. Does it include Gerry Brownlee? If I recall correctly Gerry Brownlee raised this as a matter of real concern in the select committee. 
Pita Paraone 
: He’d be a good whangai. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: He would be a good whangai yes but does it include him? I am sure my colleague Gerry Brownlee would not mind me bringing him into the debate because as I say this was an issue of real concern to the committee members and it took up quite a lot of our discussion. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I thank the member Georgina te Heuheu for her contribution and for her desire to seek clarification on whangai according to the tikanga of Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. As she will be aware and as I am sure every Maori member in this Chamber is aware respective iwi have their own tikanga in terms of whangai. Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau have been inclusive in the interpretation of their tikanga. Whether that would make a Chinese person Gerry Brownlee a Pakeha person or anyone else of any ethnicity eligible for the benefits of the settlement will be entirely up to Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau to decide in accordance with their tikanga. I do not think it is appropriate for any iwi that is not connected with this settlement to challenge their right to do so. 
I have family members who have been legally adopted and who have been whangai-ed according to tikanga who are not of Maori descent. They—meaning my brothers sisters cousins or whoever—will enjoy the benefits of any settlement that comes through their adopted parents. Those benefits come through that line—they do not come any other way—as would be the case for a natural child of any beneficiary of any settlement. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased with that explanation made by the Minister. I think the further important point to be made and to become part of the record relates to the phrase: “in accordance with Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) tikanga (customary values and practices)”. The Minister is quite right. If Ngati Tuwharetoa according to their tikanga want to include Gerry Brownlee or a Chinese person kei te pai. I think that is what the Minister is saying. That is fine. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: That is their concern. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The Minister is saying that that is not for us as parliamentarians to question. That is fine as well. 
But I flag a concern that some future Government would suggest that. Well if it is good enough for Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau to include Gerry Brownlee a Chinese person or any other person—we are not picking just on Chinese people and I hope any Chinese people who are listening understand that; it is just by way of an example—then it should be good enough for any other tribe settling subsequently. 
But that will not be the case because the settlement is limited by the words: “in accordance with Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) tikanga …”. The tikanga of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty is bound to be different from the tikanga of say Ngati Hine up north—it may be different. If it is different and if Ngati Hine or any other tribe that comes to settle decide that some person outside of the kin group or blood group is not to be a beneficiary then that is their right too. 
I think the importance of this discussion is the recognition that these settlements are distinctive and unique to the tribe that is settling. In this Committee tonight we are dealing with Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and no other tribe and what is their right to decide cannot or ought not to in the future be taken as something generic to be applied to all other tribes settling. As long as we all understand that and as long as it goes into the record then no harm is done. 
As I said I appreciated the explanation from the Minister and I appreciate the Chair giving me that extra time to put that into the record. It is very important. Other tribes of course are already starting to grapple with the issue. The Adoption Act makes adopted children beneficiaries whether or not one wants them to be and whether or not they are blood or kin. In respect of whangai without a legal adoption there is still room for the tikanga of a particular tribe to apply. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I particularly want to refer to clause 14 and frankly I have to say for a party that has made so much of the inclusion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi how bad it is that it is not taking a call on this part. The New Zealand First Party is apparently not taking a call on Part 2. 
Dail Jones 
: That is a lie—you wait and see. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Oh well I will be pleasantly surprised if the New Zealand First Party does choose to take a call on Part 2—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell the member that I do not need cross-interjection. I just wish to make the point that a party that is serious about eliminating references to the principles of the treaty should take calls when they arise as they do in clause 14. National’s policy announced by Dr Brash in the now famous speech at Orewa is to remove inclusion to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. I wrote about that in the  
New Zealand Law Journal  
in May of 2003. 
What is wrong with the inclusion of the principles? It is this. The principles do not exist in reality. What one actually has are provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi—clauses that are quite simple on the face of it—both in English and in Maori. Normally one would expect would one not in interpreting an agreement—and the Treaty of Waitangi is an agreement—reference to the terms of the agreement itself; not some judicial fiction invented by the Court of Appeal trying to do its best about some appallingly drafted legislation by the Lange-Palmer Labour Government. Because that is what it all stems from: that appalling inclusion in the State-Owned Enterprises Act which has now infected our law to our disadvantage. 
So we are saying: “Let’s revert back to first principles.” Let us remove reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; and in this case we are in agreement with other centre-right parties in this Parliament—New Zealand First and the ACT party. We do believe in a reference to black letter law—one lets the law say what it means and one makes reference to the terms of the treaty which are precisely the issues raised in clause 14 of the bill. 
Clause 14(a)(i)(A) states: “from the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi);”. It should be one or the other. Only reference to the treaty is required. That would be of enormous benefit to the law. In substantive terms it would make no difference to the way we do our settlements because we recognise that settlements are for breaches of the treaty—in other words confiscations and other actions that remove the property rights of Maori. That is the very essence of the preamble the acknowledgments and the apologies within this document. Land was confiscated in essence illegally in breach of the terms of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. So we say that the rule should be quite clear. In claim settlements one is acknowledging breaches of the law. 
The only reason Maori cannot sue on the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi is that essentially it is outside the statute of limitations; there are other reasons as well but that is the main reason. If for instance the breach had occurred 12 years ago people would simply sue for breach of the law. In reality these breaches occurred much longer ago so one has to make reference to the breach of the Treaty of Waitangi itself—not a document that is part of the law of the land I might add—and that would be the answer to these vexed issues. We say this: the Government makes consistent and persistent errors by continuing to include these provisions. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Dr Mapp was not in the Chamber when I spoke on this bill a short while ago but I am now speaking again. I note the interest that Dr Mapp has in the use of the words “or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” in clause 14(a)(i)(A). I appreciate his concern and Mr Franks’ concern about that. Of course Mr Franks’ previous amendment to a whole clause rather than to a part was ruled out of order. Just to be consistent I am putting forward an amendment to delete the words “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” and we will see whether the National Party supports it. I got the impression from the previous speaker Georgina te Heuheu that National was quite happy with what I said a little while ago. But perhaps Dr Mapp was not listening to what I said and now he is saying “All right let’s put it in.” So I am putting in an amendment and we will see where we go with Dr Mapp on that particular issue. 
The issue does not make any difference either way to me or to New Zealand First in the context of only this legislation. As I said this legislation brings something to an end and whatever the people of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are getting—on the basis of whatever principles may exist on the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi on the basis of this confiscation or that confiscation or on the basis of whatever somebody said 100 years ago 50 years ago or 25 years ago—we really do not know what finally drove people to come to this decision. One has a negotiation and one ends up with a compromise. I doubt whether anyone who sat around the committee table in coming to this conclusion said it had to be worked out on the basis of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I am sure that when people look at the settlements set out in the schedules they will see that none of those settlements relate to anything to do with the so-called principles of the treaty. It came down to people making a decision reaching a compromise and saying that at the end of the day they have argued about the issues for 100 years and finally the Government and the various political parties have decided to do something about them. So those people have reached this decision. 
It is really academic and a matter that is in the past tense to go into the reference to the principles of the treaty in this particular bill. However I appreciate the concern that other members have expressed so I have asked for the words “or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” in clause 14(a)(i)(A) to be deleted. I really look forward to receiving the support of Georgina te Heuheu and Dr Mapp on that. 
This bill has had a considerable amount of time spent on it already and New Zealand First wants to bring all these matters to an end and have the issues resolved. That is the basis of our policy. I do not intend to take any further time on this issue and look forward to the clause being dealt with at the appropriate time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Stephen Franks. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt Mr Franks at this point. I realise I am slightly beyond the time but I have taken the time and trouble to check the order of speaking. I said in my speech that New Zealand First had not taken a call in Part 2 on the principles of the treaty. I was accused in an unparliamentary term of not being correct. I have since checked the record and seen that in fact a call had not been taken in Part 2 at that time. I therefore ask Mr Jones to withdraw the comment he made about me. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The comment that my friend Dr Wayne Mapp made was that New Zealand First is not taking a call. That was in the future tense and I said to him that he could not tell us what we were going to do. As you know Mr Chairman the National Party is entitled to two calls and New Zealand First is entitled to one call in the Committee stage. Georgina te Heuheu had one call Dr Mapp had another call and then it was my turn to get the call. Dr Mapp should learn a little more about the Standing Orders and about tenses before he gets carried away. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I wish to reply to the accusation just made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we are getting into a debate between the two of you and I do not think we need to take it any further. In regard to the matter of the speaking order everything is OK. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a fresh point of order. It is an issue of tense. I did not use future tense; I used past tense. I am absolutely clear on that point and I invite Mr Jones to reflect upon that point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I take your point Dr Mapp. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I want to address an amendment that Mr Dail Jones for New Zealand First has proposed and just spoken on. The effect of his amendment is to remove from clause 14 the reference to the principles of the treaty. That would leave clause 14(a) defining historical claims as being every claim that is founded on a right arising from the Treaty of Waitangi or arising under legislation common law aboriginal law or fiduciary duty in relation to Acts before 21 September 1992. Now this may seem like simple party point-scoring—and I would like to be able to support the amendment because I do not like those words—but I think that New Zealand First has the order of things around entirely the opposite of what it really intends. 
There is only one place in this bill that should refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and that is clause 14 because that clause is the definition that tries to state that the settlement is full and final. When parties state later on in the operative clause that they accept there will be no more historical claims that is defined in clause 14. Unfortunately clause 14 refers to the Treaty of Waitangi Act where section 6 uses the phrase “the principles of the Treaty”. In other words the only reason we are having this settlement is that there was deemed to be a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So this is the one place where those words have to stay simply in order to get rid of them. 
In the earlier part the words were redundant. If we believe there is no such thing as the principles and there is only the treaty the words are utterly redundant and should have been removed in order to make sure that we were not endorsing and continuing that redundancy. In clause 14 the situation is the opposite of that. In clause 14 we have to refer to the principles of the treaty because we are actually getting rid of them. Therefore although I would very much like to vote for a New Zealand First change of heart to get rid of these principles in this particular case clause 14 is the one place where it is necessary to refer to them. I believe that is what the Hon Georgina te Heuheu would say too. She has looked at this issue and as a former member of the Waitangi Tribunal she knows that however much the words “the principles” confound things—however hard it is for people to decide exactly what they are supposed to cover—that is the wording that the legislation used and it is what the tribunal had to apply. Therefore when we settle a claim those are the words that need to be used in order to state that it is all over and that people cannot settle it any further. When we remove the words “the principles of the Treaty” from the Treaty of Waitangi Act then we will never again need this kind of loony definition. Mr Jones’ instinct was right; it is a loopy thing to have in our law. But as a technicality clause 14 is the one place where we need to use it. 
I am glad to see that New Zealand First will bring forward an amendment of this kind. That is courageous and I wish that I could support it. I think that possibly with a bit more time and if we had had time to sort this matter out not in sight of the microphones we might have reached agreement on just what should be done with regard to the references to the principles of the treaty. But as the situation has turned out New Zealand First has found the courage to propose the elimination of the reference to the principles of the treaty one part too late in this debate. I will of course watch very closely to see how National votes on this amendment and to see whether the Hon Georgina te Heuheu takes a call again to explain just how National will vote on this move by New Zealand First. 
I have found the speeches made by the National members very interesting. Dr Wayne Mapp’s very thoughtful speeches show just how long he has been thinking and what a long trip he has had to take to get to where he is at today from the position he was at 3 years ago. But that is something to be commended and he has made it obvious that it is not just a reflex backflip but is reasoned. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech from Stephen Franks. It went to the heart of the issue of what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are and what references to those principles in any law mean. 
It is interesting that even today in the select committee we were discussing with the Office of Treaty Settlements an interpretation of the principles set out by the Crown Minerals agency. We discovered that many Government agencies have their own set of principles that are to be applied to the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no doubt that it is appropriate for the Government at some time in the future presumably immediately after the next election when Don Brash is the Prime Minister to go through an exercise of removing those references from legislation where they have multifarious meanings—where they have meanings that cannot be considered consistent from one piece of legislation to another. 
The question that arises here is whether we should do as New Zealand First would have us do and remove from clause 14 references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I think we have to be very careful about a blanket removal of such statements particularly if those statements in some way constrain an activity that is normally available to a claimant group. That is exactly what is in clause 14. Effectively it means that Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty cannot come back to Parliament using a Treaty of Waitangi grievance or picking up on any principle of the Treaty of Waitangi that may be garnered from the smorgasbord of principle opportunities scattered throughout our law to have another go at settlement. That is understood by Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. That is part of the agreement that has been reached with the Crown. In that circumstance I am of the view that by referring to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi we are simply extending the concept beyond just the grievance process that might be taken to a tribunal into a statement that says: “Don’t try using any of those other options that many laws currently provide to you.” 
All that National members want to make clear is that at the same time we will support encourage and lead moves to get unnecessary reference to treaty principles out of legislation. The question is whether it is necessary here. In the uncertain environment that we have at the moment we can have the Office of Treaty Settlements happily tell us that although numerous Government departments will have their own interpretations of what the treaty principles mean it is OK just to fire them into bits of legislation here and there. 
In this case the legislation is very clear and is worth reading. Clause 14(a) states: “… every claim (whether or not the claim has arisen or been considered researched registered notified or made on or before the settlement date) that Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) (or a representative entity) had at or at any time before the settlement date or may have at any time after the settlement date that—(i) is or is founded on a right arising—(A) from the Treaty of Waitangi … or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi …; or (B) under legislation or at common law …; or (C) from fiduciary duty;” and so on. Effectively avenues that could exist at the moment in the law for another look at a settlement are closed off by that coverage. 
It really points to the need for Crown Law to do the major exercise of going through legislation. I hope the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ bill does make the floor of the House. National members will support that. We want it to go to a select committee. I cannot understand why the man has never sought leave to have it come before the House but he does not really want it to come up before the election because he knows that it will be treated in a fairly discursive manner by the current Government and it deserves a great deal better treatment than that. So the new Government will pick up that concept. It will have Crown Law go through legislation fastidiously looking for places where there is blanket reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The incident I mentioned before was that of a settlement bill that dealt with the potential for the particular iwi to claim mineral rights. It said that in future Crown Law had to deal with that iwi according to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The question was asked of it as to which principles those were. The answer was the principles that that department has established as being relevant to it in relation to the treaty. Well that really means that some bureaucrat somewhere—poor fellow or woman whomever it might be—has an awfully large duty upon him or her to respect not only the interests of the settling party but the wider interests of the New Zealand taxpayer the New Zealand citizen. I think that is unacceptable. Parliament should be much more prescriptive than that. 
In conclusion—and thank you Mr Chairperson for the extra time—I just want to make it clear that National is supporting the statement in this clause about treaty principles because it is a restriction on all other references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that are scattered throughout our law. We understand what New Zealand First is trying to do. We applaud it for calling to attention the extent to which reference to treaty principles litters our law but we feel strongly that by this statement being included here greater protection and greater clarity are given to the finality of this particular settlement. If settlements are to be full and final then there should be no opportunity in those settlement bills for another look at them. Without the specific exclusion of reference to the principles of the treaty then it is fair to say there could be just a glimmer of opportunity for a successive generation of Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty descendants to have another look at it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a funny old Parliament is it not? There we were on Part 1 and I was getting—shall we say—attacked by Mr Franks about supporting the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and we learnt that we could not put forward that amendment anyway because it was an agreement. So New Zealand First called everybody’s bluff and we put forward an amendment to remove the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” because I had heard from Dr Mapp that he seemingly supported the removal of that phrase. I had had that very strong impression from Dr Mapp. He had challenged me to take a call and had made the point that I had not taken one so I took a call and said that I would put forward an amendment to delete references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Then what did we have? We had the deputy leader of the National Party make the speech that I had made on Part 1. That is what it boiled down to. He had seen the light. So we have almost three views from the National Party: we have the Gerry Brownlee view the Dr Wayne Mapp view and the Georgina te Heuheu view. 
Of course I was amused by Mr Stephen Franks. He accused me of being a snake oil salesman. What was his second speech if not a speech from a snake oil salesman—with all due respect to Mr Franks! 
Well we have put forward the amendment and we will be arguing for it to continue. Interestingly for the future exactly the same sort of wording is used in the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill that is coming up. Perhaps we will take a different view on that legislation but having established this sort of trial on the wording this time I will still persist with my amendment and perhaps next time things will be different—the view having been confirmed around the Chamber on this occasion. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to amend paragraph (a)(i)(A) by omitting the words “or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 12 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Settlement of historical claims and miscellaneous matters 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This of course is the part of the bill and these are the clauses of the bill that give effect and weight to the previous part which was discussed just a few minutes ago. It is the part that makes it absolutely clear that Parliament considers this to be a full and final settlement and that Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty also accept that this is a full and final settlement. 
But I want the Minister to tell the Committee how many members of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty iwi who are eligible to vote for the acceptance of this bill or of the deed of settlement did so. We are very concerned that only a small number of this iwi—well less than half of those eligible—have voted in favour of this settlement. I know that the Government will have an answer for us and I would like to hear it. It is important when we reach the final stages of these settlements that those who are being settled accept the deal in overwhelming numbers. We have to remember that much of the historical research etc. that was carried out to reach this point of the claim being settled originated in the oral history of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Certainly the documented evidence that was available was considered. But in a society that values its oral history I think it is very very important that a large number of eligible people participate in the first place and ultimately ratify any settlement. Low numbers participating leaves the option open for successive generations to say: “Look Parliament settled that on us but a large number of us weren’t too keen on it. A large number of us never expressed a view on whether this was full and final settlement.” So I would like the Minister to give us the numbers and convince us that enough voted. I see the United Future member holding up a piece of paper and waving it around. It is of no significance whatsoever. The member I think yelled out before that 55 percent of those who voted voted in favour of the settlement. But how many did not vote? I am happy to be convinced; if the Minister has compelling evidence that would suffice. 
In accepting this part I do think it is worth saying that the generosity of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty should be recognised. Once we go past the point of saying that there is something to settle the questions then become: “What is the cost? What has to be done to redress the grievance that is deeply felt?”. The reality is that in 2005 terms measured against 1840 and subsequently it is impossible to compensate adequately or appropriately for loss. Members should remember that these are land losses. In most cases these are rights losses. They are quantifiable. So we reach a figure that is large enough to allow the iwi to maintain their mana to hold up their heads and to move forward. 
So we simply say to Ngati Tuwharetoa that this is a significant acceptance on their part. It is an opportunity not only for their part of the world but also for the whole country to take one more step towards the end of grievance and towards all New Zealanders focusing on a better future. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I would like to start by echoing the comments just made by Mr Brownlee. I think accepting this part is an act of generosity by Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. As he said this part is at the heart of the bill. It is about providing for full and final settlement and it should be treated with the seriousness that the member gave it. 
As to the comparisons of results I can reassure the member. I want to echo what I said earlier in response to his colleague which was that I agree entirely that it is highly desirable to have the maximum possible level of participation. Our obligation is to ensure the opportunity is there for that participation but we cannot force people to exercise their right to participate—it is after all a right. But by way of reassurance to the member in comparison I can think of two good examples that have stood some test of time. In the case of Waikato-Tainui the participation rate was 40 percent of which 65 percent voted in support of the final settlement. In Ngai Tahu there was a 50 percent participation rate of which 94 percent voted in support of the final settlement—somewhat higher than for Waikato-Tainui. In the case of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty there was a 55 percent participation rate and 95 percent approval. So it stands well in that company. I agree with the member that we should always pursue the best level of participation but participation in this settlement process was certainly better than in the two largest settlements that have stood some test of time. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 First of all I speak on the matter that my colleague Gerry Brownlee remarked on and the importance of why National voted against New Zealand First’s amendment regarding the principles. 
This bill arises because Ngati Tuwharetoa brought a claim the jurisdiction of which is based on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no other jurisdiction that exists at this point in time upon which a tribe can bring a claim for a breach by the Crown. Of course there are parties in this House—ours included—that intend to change that jurisdiction in the future but for the moment that is the jurisdiction that exists. I sat on the Waitangi Tribunal for 10 years and our brief was exactly that—the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. That is why it is important under clause 14 that the historic claims are defined because in Part 3 which is the part we are dealing with we come to the settlement of the historic claims of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Part 3 basically says that on that basis this tribe cannot at any time in the future return to this House for redress on the claims now being settled. As I say we all must bear in mind that the settlement now proceeds on the basis of breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
I want to make a comment in regard to what Mark Burton said about the improvement in the buy-in rates of the tribes as we move along the process first of all for the ratification of the governance entities and for a particular tribe to approve of the deed of settlement itself. Although I agree that 95 percent of a 55 percent voter record is a vast improvement on particularly the first two settlements—Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu—the Minister should bear in mind that in both of those settlements in my view there was not the level of cross-claiming or overlapping interests that we now find in the Bay of Plenty area. Of course the Minister has recently taken over and I think is now moving into the Bay of Plenty into the central North Island. I wish him all the best as he tries to come to grips with all the overlapping interests in that area in which of course my own tribe is involved. So yes this is a better validation of a deed of settlement but in my view it has to be. The level of cross-claim and overlapping interest is far greater in respect of the centre of the North Island than we have experienced before. Maybe that statement is open to other views because we have not actually moved to the northern area in any great way at this point. The fact that in particular the Kaingaroa Forest which is the subject of a number of competing tribal claims is in the middle just highlights that we must always strive to improve the validation by tribes of their deeds of settlement. Otherwise of course there is the potential for any tribe to come back in the future regardless of clause 15 which states that no one can come back on those same issues. Only maximum buy-in in my view will guarantee that they do not come back in the future. 
One other issue we should all be aware of that I want to refer to just briefly is clause 18 “Removal of resumptive memorials”. That is indeed a benefit of having a claim settled and of having similar legislation pass through this House. As we all know for at least the last 10 years there have been caveats on a whole lot of titles in this process. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on clause 15 and to refer also to the statements made by my colleagues Georgina te Heuheu and Gerry Brownlee in relation to that. Clause 15 makes it quite clear on the face of it that this is a final settlement and that as a matter of law the settlement is of full force and effect. I guess that one of the concerns the public of New Zealand has—because the reality is that people know each Parliament can pass new law that repeals old law—is whether this nation will revisit these claims again. My colleagues have referred to the level of participation and the importance of buy-in because “full and final” is not just a legal concept; it is a moral concept as well. 
I believe that there is a strong sense today that the procedures and processes—the nature of the negotiations and the democratic process of votes that occurs—do not lead just to a legal obligation about which people feel that we can just change the law but more important also to a moral obligation. It is actually the reason why successive Governments—National and Labour—refer to the Crown. It is the Crown that is settling; the Government of the day in a literal sense is merely the legal representative of the Crown which is intended to have enduring force and ties. If there is one reason why New Zealand would retain that connection to the monarchy it is that enduring legacy which Maori often refer to. The moral force of having the Crown as the signatory is intended to bind not just the New Zealand Government but also the Maori signatories. The democratic path and process that the Government undertakes is well understood by Maori as being a reference to the Crown. Perhaps more than any other people in the country Maori make reference to the honour of the Crown. I have heard many Maori leaders scholars and lawyers refer to that phrase. It binds both ways. 
The moral force of the law we pass today is not something that binds just this Parliament it also binds Maori—not just for one generation not just for 10 or 20 years but as a permanent settlement. In this instance “permanent” means in essence forever. We are closing this chapter of Ngati Tuwharetoa’s history and the Crown’s history together. People will look forward. I believe it is very important that Government representatives—and those on this side of the Chamber as well—and Maori make it very clear to the wider public of New Zealand that this issue is closed. It is a trilateral relationship in that sense. This is an opportunity to move forward—to use the proceeds of the settlement to advance forward. 
In the recent words of some prominent Maori people who have electoral aspirations this is a 20th century issue rather than a 21st or 22nd century issue. I make the point that when National states that it intends to settle all settlements by 2010 when the Government by its legislation states that the settlements are full and final and when Maori say that they are settling with the Crown those statements have more than just legal force—they are moral impediments for the future of this country. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This is the part that records the settlement. Clause 15(1) states that the settlement is final and that “on and from the settlement date the Crown is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities in respect of those claims.” What is not immediately obvious from the words of clause 15 is that the definition that applies is set out in Part 2 which we have just considered. That definition relates only to historical claims. In fact historical claims do not even include any claims that may have arisen since 1992; they go from 1992 back to 1840. 
The Government should have learnt from the experience of the past 10 years or so that full and final settlement should be full and final settlement and then the treaty should be dead. We have created a generation of talented young people who are now growing into their peak years and whose lives have been built around grievance. Although many of those whom I saw and was impressed by at the Hui Taumata want to move on there are still too many who can hardly do that because their living their entire expertise and their authority comes from that industry. 
I am concerned that the Government is making these settlements and that it still has a residue of public support for them when in fact elements of the claims are expressly not settled. I imagine for example that Ngati Tuwharetoa will be pushing Wai 262—that unbelievable claim to own the flora and fauna in New Zealand when Maori and later Pakeha came. I do not think that the settlement in Part 3 or any of these settlements should be made while the Crown deliberately fosters the notion of a distinction between the contemporary claims under a treaty that goes on forever and that forever draws distinctions between New Zealanders on the basis of their ethnic inheritance and a treaty that deals with the terms on which two different peoples coexist for the shakedown period until they genuinely became one people—the one people that Hobson foresaw. So I think that the rather extravagant language in this provision which states that the Crown “is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities” in respect of the historical claims should be withheld until we know that New Zealanders are to be rid of the treaty once the settlements are made. 
I see no place in a constitution of a contented society for a document that people call a foundation document that states that people can claim inherited privilege on the basis of their ethnic inheritance. That is exactly what the contemporary arguments say. When the Hon Margaret Wilson became the Minister in 1999 she told the House that there would be a statement of the principles as the basis on which claims that were not historical would be approached. That document has never emerged. I do not know whether any work has even been done on it in the last 3 or 4 years. We were told in the first year that there was a lot of work being done on the principles for settlement of the so-called contemporary claims but we have never seen it. There was to be a whole-of-Government approach. I think the office that is represented by officials here today was to be in charge of it. It got too hard. 
The contemporary claims are now scattered throughout the Government and we have no idea whether there is any consistency in approach whatsoever. The honourable John Tamihere was in charge of dealing with some of them—the Wai 262 claim for example which I think is one of the claims that is most likely to cause offence between Pakeha and Maori. The Wai 262 claim which should have been included here is a matter that— 
Darren Hughes 
: Two percent support in the polls. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Is the Government whip complaining about another call being granted? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He is just observing that ACT is 2 percent in the polls. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Two percent. This is a very very arrogant Government. The arguments being put forward are arguments the people of this country have wanted to hear in this Parliament for 20 years. A speech from Dr Brash caused such a crumble in Labour’s support because it was what people had been dying to hear. A speech like that caused such a reaction and the Minister’s only response on a question of whether the treaty is truly a fundamental constitutional document was to throw out a jibe about party support. What a feeble and inadequate response! There must be something that he feels will be achieved. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Who is your target market? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The target market for this speech is in fact New Zealanders who are asking where this treaty industry is taking us. How do we know that anything is full and final? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Two percent! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Does the Minister think that only two percent of people are worried about that? The Minister needs to look at the polls that did not tell him what was creeping up when Dr Brash made his speech. When Dr Brash made his speech Labour was just as cocky. The consequences will come again. 
But the question that Part 3 raises is: what is a settlement? What is “full and final”? How do we know that this legislation matters at all when the contemporary claims have been left fully alive—that is anything that has happened after 1992? All of the sense of grievance can be regenerated in another generation. It can all come back. If there is not truly a partnership—if we are not all living here as part of the Crown under the Sovereign—and if instead we are negotiating through our representatives for a privilege based on our ethnic origins then there can be no final settlement. This settlement will mean nothing if that is the foundation for New Zealand’s polity. If that is the basis on which we relate to each other—that we share the spoils of power which is the way that Labour approaches government—then there is no end to this and the settlements are nothing more than a temporary payment to postpone the next instalment. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Cultural redress 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This includes debate on schedules 1 to 9. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 4 deals with cultural redress which this Parliament will have become familiar with. For those people who might be listening it is part of a package of redress options that the Crown usually negotiates with claimants. There is usually some financial redress property redress and cultural redress. 
I want to mention an issue that the National team has raised in a number of debates not just on this bill but in other debates on bills that are currently before Parliament and also in the debate on the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Act that was passed into law 2 weeks ago. Statutory acknowledgments essentially give some preference in various ways to various sites in a particular tribe’s rohe and give recognition to the fact that customarily the tribe exercised certain rights—they lived in certain places and gathered food in certain areas. This acknowledgment is an attempt to recognise those customary practices. 
The issue that has been concerning the National Party over recent months is the sets of narratives that accompany recognition of these statutory acknowledgments. I think our colleague Pita Paraone has referred to this already this evening. The tribes rightly are required to show their connections with various rivers mountains hills and land sites. That is a proper thing to do and those recognitions are acknowledged in the deed of settlement. But I think there is an issue about that recognition becoming part of the bill. To demonstrate this we were presented with a schedule that recounted how the geothermal resource came from Hawaiki to Tongariro in my own area. Suffice to say that schedule did not find its way into the bill that is now before us and for good reason in this case because Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty gave a recitation of the coming of fire so to speak from Hawaiki to Tongariro which in some respects precluded Ngati Tuwharetoa my own people from telling their story as to how that geothermal resource came to exist in Aotearoa. Thankfully Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty were persuaded that their acknowledgment and the recognition of their relationship with the geothermal resource could just as easily be accommodated by its recitation in the deed of settlement and therefore it did not find its way into the bill. 
These acknowledgments are made up of a mixture of mythology and history but very often it is mythology. That does not make it wrong but it does present a problem. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It shouldn’t be part of the law. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes it does present a problem for us as legislators as to whether we should be incorporating those sorts of stories and mythologies into the law. Increasingly National is of the opinion that if it is not necessary to put it into the bill itself then why should it be in the schedules? It is not so fatal as to make us vote against the settlement legislation but Parliament should be careful as to what it puts into the law. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I would like to thank my colleague Georgina te Heuheu for drawing out the point of the role of the law and mythology. Certainly one recognises that all peoples throughout the entire world have their myths legends and beliefs because this is part of the human condition. We have tried in this country as much as is reasonably possible to keep the spiritual world apart from our law. We do it for good reason. We do it because we want to treat all people equally irrespective of their beliefs. Difficulty occurs when people’s beliefs are elevated into the law. It is exclusionary—it excludes others in essence. 
I have heard the Prime Minister talk about one of the values of New Zealand being that it is a secular society and I happen to agree with her. We are a secular society. That does not mean to say that we are an irreligious society or that we are a society without beliefs. It is saying however that we do not put those beliefs into the law because the intent is that we treat all our citizens equally irrespective of the beliefs they might happen to have. That enables each person and each group to have their beliefs—to celebrate them to commemorate them and to pay observance to them. We treat that as standing outside the law of the land. So our secular society is another way of saying that we are all equal before the law. 
National has taken the view that the myths and legends referred to in the various schedules—for instance schedule 9 refers to the fire gods Pupu and Hoata and schedule 6 refers to islands disappearing as a result of karakia—do not have a place in the law of the land because they infringe the idea that we are all treated equally. As my colleague said we will not be using that as a reason to vote against the legislation but we are saying that settlements of this nature should not have those references in them. Moreover they are not even required. Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty do not require those references to establish their connections. They can do that by temporal references rather than spiritual references. That is the role of the law as opposed to the role of belief in our society. 
So I am taking the opportunity along with my colleague to say that we need to think afresh about this because it is about the values of our country. I have heard the Prime Minister speak of the importance of secular society. I presume she understands what she means when she says that which is that we are all able to be treated equally in our own country. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I say in brief response that I think the points made are certainly worthy of consideration for future reference. I acknowledged that myself to the Maori Affairs Committee when we met concerning this matter. In looking to future settlements and to the legislation and at the link between them and the deeds I think indeed that this is a matter that can be properly discussed. I think the potential difficulty in this case was that in good faith the negotiators had reached a point where the legislation was to reflect by repetition of those records what is contained within the deed. 
I want to put on record my appreciation of the willingness of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty negotiators to be responsive to the concerns that were raised and their willingness to have that amendment agreed to. I think that allowed us all to move forward constructively and to bring the legislation back to the House with a general agreement. Rather than discord we are having a sensible discussion about how we will deal with these matters in the future. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I was going to say that Part 4 is the guts of the bill but it is not. Part 3 is the recognition of settlement. Part 4 is full of the provisions that should really worry people about the future of the settlement. It is simply stuffed with provisions that no one can tell the meaning of. Part 4 hands out a new generation’s bangles and beads to Ngati Tuwharetoa. The protocols look as if they are offering something from the perspective of a believer in a good-faith approach but when we get down to the legal language we see they are deliberately stated to mean nothing in terms of impact or enforceability. 
The ideas of cultural redress properties and of statutory acknowledgments are expressly said in one part to be an acknowledgment by the Crown of the particular cultural spiritual historical and traditional associations of Ngati Tuwharetoa with the statutory areas listed. Then a statement of purpose requires the Environment Court and the Historic Places Trust to have regard to them to ensure that Ngati Tuwharetoa gets notice of resource management applications in order to allow it to cite statutory acknowledgments as evidence of association. It says that the statutory consent authorities including the Environment Court must have regard to those acknowledgments and that they must be recorded on statutory plans but states further on that the contents are not binding as deemed fact on any of those authorities. So the authorities have to have regard to the acknowledgments but they need not treat them as statements of fact. The part then states that they are not exclusive so the association would appear not to give a privilege—although I think it is intended to look as if it is giving a privilege. 
The provisions go further for example into the geothermal statutory acknowledgments and say that they do not really mean anything to anyone else. So what is it that one has when one does a negotiation sets out the instruments—in the most authoritative form of instrument that this country knows an Act of Parliament—and states on one page that people have to have regard to them and then on all the succeeding pages says that they do not mean anything? The Minister might care to explain in just a few words exactly what the acknowledgments intend to confer. Are these valuable or not? Future generations will say that they cannot accept that the Crown and Parliament set out once again to mislead and cannot believe that a Parliament would spend time going into these things to create instruments that do not mean anything—instruments that a body is directed to have regard to but is then told are not binding. 
So what does it mean? Why is there no definition of “having regard to”? Why will the courts be left to try to decide under the normal statutory rules of interpretation that Parliament must have intended it to mean something when the words say that it does not? We are setting this up for the same kind of confusion that New Zealand has been bedevilled by ever since Parliament put those ridiculous words into the State-Owned Enterprises Act—that nothing shall be inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—when it knew that no one knew what those principles were. 
These bills will be made to mean something by courts. It might not be that the courts are setting out to cause strife—the sort of strife this Government got itself into when the courts decided that the seabed and foreshore were not owned by the Crown as everyone had assumed for 100 years. They may not set out to cause strife but they are bound to try to give some meaning—other than sleight of hand—to a statutory document. The Minister surely can tell us exactly what is meant by for example clause 56 that states: “The entry into a deed of recognition does not in relation to a statutory area to which a deed of recognition applies—(a) require the Crown …”. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make some comment on this part of the bill—particularly in terms of some of the comments made by those who have already spoken—given that it is all about cultural redress. 
Reference has been made to the narratives regarding cultural connection that have been excluded from and included in the bill. I say right from the outset that Ngati Tuwharetoa have a right to their beliefs and their tikanga. We in New Zealand First do not have any gripe with that. For that matter any group—Maori or non-Maori—in this country is entitled to its view. 
However New Zealand First is concerned that those beliefs should not be legislated for in order to give credibility to them. Our concern is that the fact that this reference has been included in this legislation will give credibility to those beliefs. It is very important to note that there was an earlier intention to include a reference in the bill as to where fire came from and that the Government agreed to exclude that. 
The important issue for me is that the exclusion of those references would not affect this settlement or the effect intended by this bill. Of course one could rightly ask whether their inclusion was something the Crown was happy about in order to give the sense or feeling to the claimants that they were getting something they wanted with the Crown knowing that it would not be too much of a concern to the Crown. 
But the question that needs to be asked is what the effect of including those beliefs in legislation is. In considering that question we must look to the future. Are those beliefs what future generations of New Zealanders will have to believe in even though they may not be of Ngati Tuwharetoa descent? That is the major crux of the concern I am expressing. I just want to make it quite clear that we certainly do not wish to contradict the beliefs of Ngati Tuwharetoa or of any other such group. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.