Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7260] 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
Debate resumed on the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill. 
Vote Crown Research Institutes 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I wish to address the— 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You will be aware as I have just raised this issue with you that the matter of the proportionality of Parliament and the allocation of time in this 8-hour debate is at issue here. Can you confirm my understanding please that of the 36 minutes that were allocated to the ACT party—with the agreement of all parties I hasten to add—35 minutes have elapsed and that Mr Shirley’s speech will therefore be for a maximum of 1 minute? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my understanding that the Standing Orders give a total of 8 hours maximum for the debate. How the whips divvy that time up is determined between them; it is an informal arrangement between the parties concerned. I will attempt to ensure of course that everybody gets a fair go when the occasion arises. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I totally concur with the statement you just made. My understanding is that we are governed by the Standing Orders notwithstanding any Business Committee arrangements and that the Standing Orders provide for 5-minute speeches in this debate. I am seeking the call and if granted the call my expectation will be to give a 5-minute speech. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The issue is that with the agreement of all whips including Mr Shirley’s whip—and he may not have discussed this matter with Dr Newman but she indicated her agreement to me yesterday afternoon as did all other whips in Parliament—we allocated the time across all the estimates. That was done so that we could cooperate as best we could in ensuring that the relevant Ministers were in the Chamber and in the chair in order to facilitate the most rational and well-informed debate and response. To date that is exactly the pathway that has been followed with only one exception and in that case Mr Tisch informed me immediately that there had been a reallocation of one of National’s speaking slots. 
I certainly have no direct difficulty with Mr Shirley having a full call of—hopefully—no more than 5 minutes on this estimate but I would like the Committee to understand that that was the exception rather than the rule. Given that on the basis of the agreement between whips whereby speaking time has been allocated according to respect for the proportionality of each party’s membership in the Parliament other people have not spoken it would be most inappropriate if they were to lose that entitlement because of one party—or potentially of more than one I guess—not sticking with the deal that was clearly agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say again that members must realise that points of order take up debating time. I remind members they should be aware of that. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. David Benson-Pope mentioned me. Could he clarify that reference please? I was not sure what it was. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I am happy to do so. It was in reference to a call that Dr Smith took last night that had not been signalled but when I checked it with Mr Tisch I found it was a swap with one of those that had been previously indicated to me—with which I have no difficulty. That matter was dealt with appropriately and professionally but I am finding it difficult to be told now that there is a call on an issue that the ACT whip had not indicated. In fact if it is a full call—which as I have said the Labour Party will agree to—it will take the ACT party over the time allocated to it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to rule on this matter. I will say that again: I want to rule on this— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am speaking on behalf of the ACT party as I know that Mr Shirley may be taking the call himself. According to that party’s reckoning it has had only five speeches which have not been 10-minute speeches. The ACT party was entitled to seven 5-minute speeches which is the 35-minute allocation. The whip tells me that the party has only had five 5-minute speeches so maybe I should hand it over to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Hand over to the Hon Ken Shirley. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Speaking to the point of order I have just been in touch with our whip who is somewhat concerned about the matter raised. She advises me that her records are that we have had five speeches which is a total of only 25 minutes so we are well within our allocated time as agreed by the Business Committee. There may be a misunderstanding in the calculations on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Informal arrangements between whips are something that I cannot rule on. I will attempt to ensure that there is a fair basis of proportionality and I say that the first two speeches on this estimate will both be for a maximum of 10 minutes each. 
David Benson-Pope 
: First of all in terms of the records that were confirmed with me by the Clerk this morning at my request—to confirm or amend my records of the elapsed time from last evening—the confirmed figure which the Clerk will be able to support is that the ACT party spoke for 20 minutes yesterday and therefore had 16 minutes remaining today. Members will appreciate that I have not been in the Chamber; I have been on parliamentary business with the other whips this afternoon outside the building. But consulting the record of today’s discussions tells me on my first assessment that Ms Coddington and Mr Eckhoff of the ACT party have spoken for 5 minutes and 10 minutes respectively leaving 16 minutes minus 15 minutes—that is 1 minute—remaining of the agreed time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say again that I cannot rule on agreements between whips. I understand that was not a determination of the Business Committee and I seek the indulgence of the House because I want to ensure proportionality. That is necessary in order to do this job properly. I am prepared to take a call from someone. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I speak in the interests of making positive progress but I also want to make this point: whereas it was strictly the case that there was not an agreement of the Business Committee it certainly was the case that there was an understanding that the whips would reach this arrangement on this debate. I do not think that anyone would dispute that. So yes it is not a formal resolution. But I think it is important—indeed crucial—for the proper operation of this Parliament that when deals are struck with whips they just have to be adhered to by everybody to respect the fact that this place will not work otherwise. In the interests of seeing good progress I will on behalf of the Government side of the Chamber suggest that we will accommodate a 5-minute speech from Mr Shirley in this debate. That will enable him to make a proper contribution but it is fair to acknowledge that that is in excess of the time that is actually available by common agreement among the whips. If we do that it will allow us to continue on and we will then absorb that additional time. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that all of this is coming out of their time. We have lost nearly 10 minutes. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No this is important. Speaking to the point of order I am grateful for that consideration but there is a misunderstanding here. I have been in touch with my whip in the last few minutes. Her understanding is that we had 35 minutes which I think Lindsay Tisch indicated. She advises me that we have had five 5-minute speeches which is 25 minutes. The understanding of the whip is that there are 10 minutes remaining and two speeches to be given. I am to give one and Muriel Newman is to give the other. So I seek clarification of where the misunderstanding may be because our understanding and expectation is that we have two more 5-minute speeches remaining. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I can help. I have just put down a phone after a call from the previous speaker’s whip who informs me exactly where the misunderstanding is: Mr Eckhoff was not intended to speak for 10 minutes but he did so. However we are quite prepared to make the accommodation—and Mr Shirley can confirm that with Dr Newman; everyone who was in the Chamber prior to the break will confirm that. I am quite happy to listen to—no perhaps that is an overstatement; to accommodate—Mr Shirley’s full speech but I think that this is an unproductive waste of Parliament’s time. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I understand that I have 10 minutes in which to try to convince the member—[ 
Interruption 
] The Standing Orders provide that I have 10 minutes. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Come on; be reasonable. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The comments the member made were not reasonable. I have sought the call and the Standing Orders give me 10 minutes. Without those comments I would have stuck to 5 minutes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reality is that we have already wasted 10 minutes on this matter. The speech could quite easily have been made in that time which means that members have wasted their own time. There needs to be some sort of compromise. I cannot rule on private arrangements between whips; that is something that they must do themselves. I am guided by the Standing Orders which state that when I call the first speaker on any estimate in this debate the first two speakers have 10 minutes. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: In speaking to Vote Crown Research Institutes— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I had the call. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is quite clear that you gave a ruling and you sat down. At the end of your ruling I was given to understand that there was an opportunity to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thought you were raising a point of order. I had already given the call to the Hon Ken Shirley and I have to abide by Speaker’s ruling 23/3 on that. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: At the outset I would like to say that science is of critical importance to New Zealand. I think it is perhaps one of the most under-rated endeavours. Our whole economy is dependent on good science from the production and processing of our primary industries right across the economy. I acknowledge the contribution of successive Ministers of science and I believe the Minister in the chair the Hon Pete Hodgson is making a valiant effort in scientific endeavour. 
The challenge is that as a society we do not recognise the importance of science to the extent that we should. Scientific method transcends all cultures and creeds; it is the pursuit of physical truth. Whether it be in physics chemistry biology or genetics there are universal standards of research that have stood the test of time. Whether we are talking about the work of Aristotle or Galileo or right through to that of Pickering and Rutherford there has been a scientific method that has stood the test of time. We should not forget that scientists through the ages have withstood social pressures. Galileo was charged with heresy by the Christian church for having the temerity to suggest that the earth went round the sun. 
The point I want to make is that we in this country are at the point of abandoning reason and giving way to mythical spiritualism in our science. Other cultures have done that through the ages but one does so at one’s peril. We have now had a proposal that there is some form of Maori science and that is nonsense. Certainly Maori can endeavour in science but not through a separate methodology. All cultures have a major contribution to make to science; I acknowledge that. There will be new ways of doing things and new suggestions and methods based on traditional Maori culture will be of value to science but one does not give way to the physical pursuit of truth in the name of pursuing a metaphysical cultural belief. That is the reality. That is what Galileo faced when he suggested that the earth went round the sun. When people start to talk about leprechauns hobgoblins holy ghosts or whatever else one might want to talk about they are abandoning science. I fear that unfortunately we are seeing too much of that in this country. 
In particular I would like to refer to the work being done by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences because it confronts that very issue in its research into the volcanology of Lake Taupo. I think many New Zealanders do not appreciate the importance of that work. Lake Taupo is one giant volcanic crater. Its last major eruption was in AD 186 when it spewed out something like 40 cubic kilometres of magma. One can go to the Chatham Islands today and still find 6 inches’ depth of explosive material in the soil from the AD 186 eruption of Taupo. Chinese culture still talks about the summers that country did not have because of the Taupo eruption in AD 186. There was an even larger eruption some 20000 years ago when 400 cubic kilometres of material blew out. The AD 186 eruption was the biggest eruption in recorded history but the one 20000 years ago was 10 times bigger than that and about 400 times bigger than the Krakatoa eruption. So that is what we have in New Zealand with Lake Taupo which is a volcano. 
When the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences brought out the mini-submarine from the Max Planck Institute in 2001 with the intention of doing important volcanological survey work on the bed of Lake Taupo that submarine sat in its packing crate for over 6 months on the wharf. The institute would not confront the opposition of kaumatua from Ngati Tuwharetoa who were holding it to ransom and wanting extortion payments for allowing that important research to take place. The Minister of Maori Affairs is sitting there chuckling smiling and laughing and I challenge him to rise and explain that. In 1993 the Jim Bolger - led National Government transferred ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo to Ngati Tuwharetoa. But there were important conditions attached to that transfer of ownership and I will remind the Committee of what they were. 
One of the conditions of the transfer of ownership was that free unfettered access would be permitted in order to allow people to engage in all recreational pursuits and all forms of scientific research work. [ 
Interruption 
] For the benefit of the member for Rotorua who does not even seem to understand the nature of the problem I tell her that there was to be free public access for all recreational pursuits and scientific endeavours. It was a condition of that transfer to Ngati Tuwharetoa that those activities could continue at no fee. It was on that basis— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Ken Shirley can’t even keep his word in this Parliament. He can never be trusted in this Parliament again. He has broken yet another undertaking. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Mr Chair is there a doctor in the Chamber? Minister Burton seems to be having a seizure over there on the Government benches. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I caution members that they are becoming very unruly and it is leading to disorder. There is no need for that in the course of this debate. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I shall continue. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: He can’t be trusted. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The member for Taupo should be very very interested in this issue. The Crown agreed in 1993—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Chairman we have a barrage of interjections here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 51/4 which states “Strictly speaking a member is entitled to be heard without interruption” although members may ask reasonable questions to elicit further information. This is getting beyond that. If members wish to take a call they will be able to do so next time. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am happy to respond to any reasonable questions. I reiterate that in 1993 the Crown transferred ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo to Ngati Tuwharetoa on the clear condition that free access for all recreational activities and scientific endeavours would be permitted—at no fee. 
The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences brought out the mini-submarine  
Jago 
 in 1999 and did some major work on the volcanology of Lake Taupo. It was very important work and Television One did a splendid programme that screened on Labour weekend of that year showing the underwater pictures of that research work and the seismology associated with the bed of the lake. When the institute wanted to repeat that critically important work in 2001 Ngati Tuwharetoa said it would not give the institute permission to do that research work unless the institute was prepared to pay it a quarter of a million dollars. Ngati Tuwharetoa said the institute had to pay it to do that research work although that is absolutely against the condition of the transfer of ownership. 
I say to the Committee and to the Labour Government that in the work the Government is doing now on the foreshore and seabed—and I know the complexity of the issue; I am not trying to understate it—for goodness’ sake it should think very hard because those precedents exist out there. The Prime Minister and members on the Government side of the Chamber actually say that Lake Taupo is a good example of how wonderful things will be in respect of the foreshore and seabed. All I say is that they should look at the facts and at the truth of what has happened. 
However my question is more fundamental. I say to the Minister for Crown Research Institutes that when the board of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences was confronted with that dilemma the board had meetings with the Minister—or his predecessor; perhaps the Minister could clarify that point—and asked him to confront the issue that the Crown had transferred ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo on the condition that free access without fee was permitted and required as a condition of the transfer. That was reneged on by certain kaumatua of Ngati Tuwharetoa. I say at the outset that there were many in Ngati Tuwharetoa who did not agree with that and who were against the opposition to the undertaking of that very important and critical work. I would like the Minister to answer me on that and to explain why he did not back the institute up in doing that work. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes) 
: 
 This is my 13th year in this House and I do not think that in 13 years I have heard a speech from anyone as disgraceful as the one that has just been uttered by the Hon Ken Shirley. I do not believe I have heard a speech as disgraceful—actually I think “despicable” is a better word. I want to lay out why. I will come later to the issue of how long the member spoke agreements and so on. I want to talk about science science models and whether the member has the faintest idea about a philosophy of science—the idea that science is nestled in the culture in which it finds itself; that science is informed by the culture in which it finds itself. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: So Galileo should have been persecuted? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No Galileo should not have been persecuted. Galileo suffered from a different problem—that of a lack of academic freedom. That is the issue. There is academic freedom— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Absolutely that is the issue. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I did not interrupt the member at all during his address his most provocative address. I uttered not one syllable agin him. But I am doing it now and I suggest that he sits and takes it as well as he can give it. 
I say to the member that that despicable address was based on the idea that there is only one culture not only in New Zealand but in the world. Chinese science is different from Western science. The Western medical model is different from the Chinese medical model. It is vastly different. There is Chinese medicine in this country and there is Western medicine in this country. What needs to be said about this country—New Zealand Aotearoa—is that there are two cultures predominant. One of them is Maori and the Maori way of thinking about science is different. Eliciting Maori knowledge through that cultural lens if you will will give a different insight. What is truth then is that which is discerned by the society in which the science finds itself. So we do not believe a lot of Chinese medicine but the Chinese do and they do not believe a lot of ours. As those cultures come together—which in my hometown of Dunedin they are doing wonderfully well—we end up with some very very interesting synergies and explosions of understanding. 
That is a possibility in New Zealand with Maori science and European science. What is more it can only happen here because this is the only country in the world in which Anglo-Saxon thinking and Polynesian thinking collide and the collision continues. I say to the member that if he wants to be so unilateral monocultural and linear in his thinking he is the worse for it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What about Taupo? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will talk about Lake Taupo in a minute. The member should not worry; I will get to that no trouble at all! I am currently giving the member a towelling for being stupid. He ought to try not to be. He has a good head on his shoulders; he just has a linearity that as he gets older gets worse. 
That member should remember that he comes as I do from a culture that not only has leprechauns in it as he mentioned but also Santa Claus the Easter bunny the Loch Ness monster and on it goes. All of us are informed by the culture in which we find ourselves. 
Let us go to Lake Taupo. The story the member told is almost certainly wrong and quite possibly libellous. I was the Minister at the time I did have discussions with the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences at the time and actually I did speak with the paramount chief at the time. As far as I am aware and it may be that I do not know everything it is my understanding that there was no requirement for quarter of a million dollars or any other sum. I am not aware of that. So that accusation of extortion made freely in this Chamber by that member is probably to the best of my knowledge wrong. Actually the sister-in-law of the paramount chief has just spoken to me about this. She is a member of this House; she is from the National Party. She came over to me and said she is unaware of any extortion. I have to ask the member who has resumed his seat why he made that claim. The Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit the board of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences the scientists who were involved the paramount chief and the sister-in-law of the paramount chief who is an honourable member of this House did not tell me that that was going on so why should the member take it upon himself to make an accusation of that ilk? I think that is a very very disgraceful thing to do. 
I will say something else. The really important thing about this story is that the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences and Tuwharetoa have a hugely improved relationship because of the learning of one another’s positions that has been derived from it. I say to the member that next time a submarine wants to go to Lake Taupo everybody will know how to make it happen. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: So there was a problem. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Absolutely a problem. But the problem was not to do with money. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It was politics. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It was not politics; it was serious cultural misunderstanding. Because the member himself has serious cultural misunderstanding he will be the last to get it. It is just not going to happen to him. I think he is going to die before he gets there. 
Another issue needs to be addressed and I want to address it here and now. The reason that a mistake occurred in the time allotted to the ACT party is that nobody could shut up the ACT member from Otago who wanted to talk about methane emissions. Mr Gerry Eckhoff went on for two 5-minute speeches. That was where it happened. The Labour Party courtesy of the acting Leader of the House Mark Burton donated time to the ACT party in order to progress harmony in the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the Minister that we are supposed to be speaking about the spending plans not what formal agreements were made between whips or otherwise. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: And in one sentence I will return to them. In taking that extra time and using the Standing Orders to his fullest advantage the member has done the ACT party very serious damage not just with the Labour Party but with all other parties. The member’s arrogance is compounded not by what he said but the circumstances in which he said it. 
The last thing I want to say about science is this. The Government holds science as one of the cornerstones of our progress. The role of Maori in science is improving significantly not just in terms of Maori knowledge not just in terms of taking what is often narrow caste knowledge and codifying it and broadcasting it which is difficult in Maori culture; what else is happening is that young Maori are stepping up to PhDs in rapidly increasing numbers and some of them are just eye-wateringly good. I say to the member Ken Shirley that a bit of change is going on. The future of this country is browner than it is now. The contribution that Maori will make to science both through a Maori ethos and through a Western ethos will be remarkable indeed. 
Voteagreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Hon Pete Hodgson has three more votes. Previously we have put votes together but have taken separate votes at the end. I ask the Committee whether there is any objection to our doing the three together then taking separate votes at the end. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. 
Vote Energy agreed to.  
Vote Fisheries agreed to.  
Vote Research Science and Technology agreed to.  
Vote Attorney-General 
Vote Labour 
Vote Parliamentary Counsel 
Vote Serious Fraud 
Vote Treaty Negotiations 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I suggest that all these votes be debated as one debate but that at the end we have a separate vote on each one. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora. Whilst I stand to speak in the estimates debate about Vote Treaty Negotiations I want to take a little time to acknowledge the valedictory speech made by Graham Kelly prior to the dinner break to wish him and his family the best in the years ahead of them and to thank him for his comments about his experiences in this Parliament. So to him and his family I say nga manaakitanga. 
I also want to acknowledge comments made in the previous debate in particular the words of the Hon Pete Hodgson in response to the accusations made by the ACT member Mr Ken Shirley in relation to extortion by Ngati Tuwharetoa kaumatua. Because I have an association with these people I think that particular matter needed to be addressed and I thank the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for providing that information. 
I will now take Mr Chairman’s lead and get back to the topic at hand. Whilst treaty negotiations is a quite wide portfolio I want to speak specifically to progress in that area. Before doing that I acknowledge the Hon Margaret Wilson and the hard-working staff of the Office of Treaty Settlements for much of the work they have done in the past year and for the programme they have laid out for the 2003-04 financial year. As we are all aware Vote Treaty Negotiations contributes a major outcome for this Government in terms of a fairer and more credible and effective justice system through the immediate outcome of fair and durable settlements that resolve historical grievances relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. I underline the term “historical grievances” which means that we are dealing with grievances related to whenua; we have yet to deal with contemporary claims in terms of natural resources and adverse effects upon Maori of land confiscations. 
The Office of Treaty Settlements told the Maori Affairs Committee that the rate of progress of historical treaty settlement negotiations has increased. There are now more claimant groups in negotiations than ever before. A new settlement is expected to be reached every 6 months. The reasons given for the increased rate of activity include recent Government commitments such as the decisions to enter pre-negotiation discussions with five central North Island claimants they being Te Arawa Ngai Tuhoe Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare and to engage in intensive negotiations with Whanganui River claimants Ngati Whatua o Orakei and Ngati Kahu; the new claims development team established in 2002-03 to assist claimant groups to enter into the negotiation process to provide advice on mandate issues and to ensure greater integration between the Crown and the Waitangi Tribunal at the pre-negotiation phase; the Waitangi Tribunal’s new approach to researching hearing and reporting on historical treaty claims with the expectation now that hearings will be concluded 
by 2010 or 2011; and the progress made on Taranaki and Bay of Plenty claims which has encouraged other groups to enter into direct negotiations with the Office of Treaty Settlements. 
The Taranaki claim as well as the claims of the far north are very interesting claims. In the past they have been considered so difficult that they have been placed in the too-hard basket. But through the commitment of this Government particularly the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations a road ahead has been found and we are now dealing with many Taranaki claimant groups. We recently settled the Ngati Ruanui claim and a lot of credit is due to them for their commitment to their own development. Whilst there are a lot of issues ahead of Ngati Ruanui in terms of reconciling differences between themselves and other Taranaki hapu I have no doubt that in the future they will resolve a lot of those issues and will work together to promote their future generations and to develop not only their own economic potential but also their economic independence. Similarly we are experiencing a lot of progress in the far north. Although what was once described as the Muriwhenua claim had a lot of traction in earlier years in more recent times it has been very difficult to make progress on it. But through the leadership of the Minister many of those individual iwi have come to the table and entered into negotiations with this Government. 
All of that has happened in a very very short of space of time if we compare it with the progress that was made over the last decade. The previous Government hung its hat on two major claim settlements during its 9-year term—and they were very very difficult claims to settle. There has been a lot of criticism by the other claimant groups and by members in this House that the treaty settlements process is far too slow. However those concerns whilst well justified do not take into consideration the difficulties that this Government and the previous Government have faced in working through some very very difficult issues with regard to those claims. 
 I understand that the Secretary for Justice previously estimated a period of 25 years for the completion of settlements but we are also aware that the Waitangi Tribunal re-estimated the date for completion of claims to somewhere around 2014 and has reduced it to 2010 or 2011 under this new approach of hearing claims on district inquiries—that is a lot of the large difficult claims are being broken down into smaller groups. There is a schedule of claims and the claimant groups are now looking to make considerable progress in relation to their claims. 
The Maori Affairs Committee will be travelling to Taranaki tomorrow to hear submissions on the Ngati Tama 
settlement. That also was considered to be a reasonably difficult claim to progress but given that the Ngati Ruanui people broke through a lot of the attitude barriers that they were confronted with other Taranaki tribes are now seeking to make that same step. At this point I want to congratulate not just the Minister and staff of the Office of Treaty Settlements but also the people of Taranaki on taking such a huge step. 
In the central North Island a number of claimant groups will be looking to make progress over the next year. It is interesting that the Te Arawa lakes negotiations while quite intensive are starting to gain traction and I am sure that their negotiators will be looking to set a date to sign up to a deed of settlement. I will be talking to them over the next few days to make sure they understand that that needs to happen. 
I do not want to boast about this Government’s achievements too much but as members will be aware there are some— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Special! 
MITA RIRINUI 
: Yes we are a very modest Government and I am a very modest member but the achievements of the Labour Government 1 year into its second term are highlighted in the document I have before me. It identifies the area of treaty settlements as quite crucial in terms of the acceleration of Maori development—in particular those in the central North Island the people of my electorate my people of Ngati Awa those of Te Arawa of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and Takitimu. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 The report of the Maori Affairs Committee on the 2003-04 estimates for Vote Treaty Negotiations raises several areas of concern and I urge the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to give serious consideration to them particularly as most of those concerns were shared by all the committee members. 
The manner in which they were discussed in the committee shows I guess continuation of bipartisan support for treaty settlements. National of course continues strongly to support any and all efforts to settle historical injustices because until we do that and put those injustices behind us we cannot look forward to building a nation. It is because of that wish that I want to raise in some detail one of the areas we traversed in the select committee. It underpins I think how critical it is that the Government understand the need properly to resource all parts of the claims settlement process. 
There is no doubt that claimants over the last 4 years as much as they have wanted to move to negotiations have shown a strong preference to go to negotiations armed with tribunal findings or at least armed with the historical casebook that shows by and large the nature of the breaches. They want their day in court and the Government needs to keep that firmly in mind. It should underpin the funding decisions that it makes. 
This year the Office of Treaty Settlements has received additional funding—and I will come to the two main areas—but the Waitangi Tribunal has not. In my view that will quickly cause a bit of a bottleneck. I heard Mita Ririnui gloat a little about the Government’s achievements; I will not be churlish given the discussion that went on earlier with Pete Hodgson in relation to science. If settlements are moving through that is good. The additional funding this year is mainly to enable the Office of Treaty Settlements to strengthen its negotiating capacity; it includes pre-negotiations and also includes better integration between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal. Secondly the additional funding is to strengthen Crown representation at the Waitangi Tribunal hearings. 
The new funding is predicated on increased negotiation activity due to so we are told a recent Government commitment to enter negotiations with five central North Island iwi comprising over 100 claims and secondly the Waitangi Tribunal’s new approach to researching hearing and reporting on claims which has caused it to revise its hearing schedule. The hearing of historical claims will be finished it thinks in 2011-12 instead of 2014-15. It has been able to revise that date downward to 2011-12. Again that is promising. 
There is a problem however. It arises in National’s view because there seems to be an assumption that streamlining the tribunal’s process means spending less or the same money. National refutes that assumption. In fact streamlining the process which means doing the same thing in a shorter time frame probably means that more resources need to be applied. I understand that the Government having put a priority on the central North Island claims expects that the Waitangi Tribunal will hear the claims in tandem with the negotiations activity. One may ask what happens when the Government has this expectation. The answer is that the Waitangi Tribunal must still do the same amount of work but with the Government’s priority in mind and it must do it on the same funding that it has had in previous years. So it is going to refocus its resources—in fact it has had to refocus its resources—on the central North Island claims. 
But if it does that it creates a bit of a bottleneck in terms of the work it already has in progress. I understand that the Gisborne report which was scheduled to be made public in December last year is 7 months behind. As of today those claims have not been reported back. The Tauranga report which was scheduled to be released midway through this year—and we have now passed to the second half of this year—will now not be out on current timetabling until the end of the year. In terms of the Tauranga claim which has focused on the raupatu question there was going to be a report and then it was going to move to the next phase. That cannot now be done. The Hauraki hearings have been put back. Although the Government has increased the funding of the Office of Treaty Settlements to get better settlements it is absolutely clear that those settlements will not occur in the way that they should. When one claim is given priority it means that other claims already in the process are put on the backburner. 
I know that this is not this Minister’s directresponsibility but she like all of us wants to see these historical claims resolved. I would urge the Government to consider putting equivalent increased funding into the tribunal; otherwise it will get sorely behind. While the central North Island claimants might feel happy that they are getting priority—and while as a potential beneficiary of those claims I might be happy about that—I am not happy for that to happen if it means that claims that have already been in the process for some time and that came in ahead of the central North Island claims are now being delayed and put back down the programme. 
That is a real issue. The committee has discussed it in its report and I would ask the Minister to urge her colleague the Minister for Courts to consider giving some additional funding to the tribunal particularly in the light of the fact that the Government seemed willing enough to pump $6.5 million into her treaty education programme. I guess that the bulk of that will go to consultants to hold more seminars and the gravy train will grow even bigger while the poor old tribunal struggles along on limited and meagre funds. 
One of the other areas of concern was the policy of settling with “large natural groupings”. Concern was expressed by all members of the committee that the Government must take care not to submerge the interests and the identity of smaller groups of individual iwi hapu and whanau in its wish to encourage the settlement of claims with “large natural groupings”. Obviously that is proving to be an issue and National thinks that some effort should go into that area to make sure that nobody is left on the sidelines. Although settlements are coming through this House Mita Ririnui and the others know very well—and possibly this will happen tomorrow—that there will always be those who feel that in the push to settle with the wider grouping others are left out. That is what we cannot afford in the resolution of these claims. 
Lastly there is the issue of the ratification of settlements and governance entities. It seems that there is reasonable buy-in of claimants to the actual deed of settlement—the settlement itself—but there is real concern which the committee looked at in some detail about the lessening proportion of eligible voters buying in to the ratification of their governance entity. We wondered why that was so. Certainly the issue of resourcing is part of it and we urge the Minister to look at that area. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 For a moment I want to concentrate on the debate on Vote Serious Fraud Office. I rise with a little bit of sadness in one respect in that when one reads in the estimates some of the work that the Serious Fraud Office is engaged in and some of the people it is chasing in order to stitch together the lives of some Kiwis who have been done over it is quite heartbreaking. I know that last year both John Tamihere and I tried to assist a number of people who were ripped off in scams and dodgy investment schemes. They still lost their dough their life-savings. 
In referring to the estimates I congratulate the Minister in the chair on the Budget for 2003-04 with funding of $5.365 million. One of the primary roles the Serious Fraud Office will be concentrating on as it always has done is white-collar fraud. That is something that I know nearly every member in this House would want to stamp out. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Not ACT the rort party. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Although the rort party from ACT of course may take a different view. I want to— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Possibly you were not listening because I am somewhat surprised you did not intercede on what the member who is speaking has just said. Perhaps your attention was distracted but he accused another party of being the rort party and made a lot of derogatory statements that are clearly unparliamentary and unacceptable in this Chamber. I would ask that you call upon him to withdraw and apologise. I certainly took offence at the statements he made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Any reference to a party is taken in the same way as to an individual. If the member has taken offence under Standing Orders 116 and 117 on personal reflections I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. Maybe my language was slightly tough. Maybe I should be more precise. If members look at the trends in the appropriations in relation to the Serious Fraud Office it is interesting to see the ongoing trends of mortgage frauds and overseas investment scams that continue to feature amongst its work to try to protect New Zealanders. It notes that New Zealanders lose literally millions of dollars a year to overseas investment schemes despite warnings and despite the work of the Serious Fraud Office in prosecuting some of those people. 
If members look at the money that will be used in this year’s estimates and then to the statutory management issue that is in process—which I will not allude to because it would be wrong to do so—in Tauranga where I believe Mr Shirley lives from the work Mr Tamihere and I did last year on the Investors International scam I recall in those speeches we said that people must be warned and the work of the Serious Fraud Office must be reinforced. I recall asking Mr Hide who participated in the famous Fiji conference—the investment scam conference—why he did not use his position as a member of Parliament to warn people not to be involved in those schemes. 
A year later the same problem is in Tauranga where I note that millions of dollars have been fleeced out of a community. The funding in the estimates of $5.3 million will be used to chase those criminals out of town. My point is did Ken Shirley the ACT party representative here do anything about that? He lives in the area. No he did not. I note the $5.3 million that the Serious Fraud Office will use; still my question to Mr Hide is: why did the great scambuster not warn people use every office he could to warn people not to invest and warn them that they could be ripped off by those scumbags in those investment schemes. 
He remains silent. Yet tonight we see and over the course of this Parliament we have seen that the ACT party is very quick to expose anything Maori any corruption or any scam; it is into it. But do ACT party members of Parliament get off their chuffs to assist the Serious Fraud Office? I commend the director of the Serious Fraud Office who will be charged with actioning the Attorney-General’s $5.3 million spend. I commend David Bradshaw for the work he does. Like any person charged with upholding the law in this country every citizen’s duty is to assist the police and the law-enforcement agencies. That applies to everybody especially members of Parliament except those gurus in the ACT party. If members want to know why it is patch protection. That is what it is about. If anybody in this House would know about white-collar scams—and Mr Shirley can take this in any way he likes—it would be him and Rodney Hide. They have uncovered a few that is true but they are very selective about the ones they uncover and they do not like it— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again I am somewhat surprised that you have not interceded. Clearly the member has breached a whole succession of the Standing Orders. Furthermore the specific reference to Rodney Hide has been the subject of a personal statement in this House. The member has been banging away on that now for about a year. He has been brought to order before on it and he continues to breach that. Mr Chairperson I ask you again to ask him to stand withdraw and apologise for his outrageous unfounded inaccurate statements that caused offence. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I was paying very close attention to what the member said. In fact in the part the member has taken exception to it seems to me that clearly the member was simply suggesting that Mr Hide and Mr Shirley had indeed engaged themselves in uncovering some scams but of a selective nature. I cannot see how he can possibly take exception. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer to Standing Order 117 which deals with personal reflections. The member has taken offence and I ask the member on his feet to withdraw. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. I want to talk about one point that has been raised about a personal explanation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall speak to a number of the votes—Attorney-General Serious Fraud and Treaty Negotiations—and I mention the Serious Fraud Office first. Interestingly enough one of the people involved in these types of arrangements—mortgage refinancing purchase arrangements—came to see me as a lawyer about 18 months ago. It was fairly obvious that the person of Fijian extraction did not understand what was going on. As a lawyer I told her not to go ahead with it and she did not go ahead with it. Unfortunately the situation that arises in many of these cases in west Auckland is that people are up to their limit on their financing; they need to refinance to be able to keep their house. They refinance by way of selling the house to the lender—having what used to be called “equity and redemption”—and the whole situation just falls apart. 
Technically it is not a scam but as a lawyer I advised my client not to go ahead with it. Sadly she was so over-financed that there was a mortgagee sale anyway. I just make that point. Of course as far as the ACT party is concerned and as far as the Labour Party is concerned I am sure there is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty to fraud. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No. 
DAIL JONES 
: There is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty to fraud— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or uttering. 
DAIL JONES 
: —or uttering and had that conviction discharged by the court. I am sure there is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty and had an initial conviction for fraud. 
Going back to the estimates all I can say is that from New Zealand First’s point of view we have an absolutely hopeless Attorney-General in the Chamber tonight. As we all know the role of an Attorney-General by convention is that the person must exercise independent judgment impartially without exceptions for party political goals; the incumbent should be free of any compromising portfolio or policy obligations although it is permissible for the Attorney-General to consult Cabinet colleagues on issues having political implications. Does this Attorney-General come within these categories? Of course she does not. She holds other Cabinet portfolios and takes an interest especially in items like the Supreme Court Bill which are mentioned in the estimates. As a member of the select committee I asked her what sort of consensus there was amongst Maori people for support for the Privy Council. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would you know about that? 
DAIL JONES 
: We got a letter from the Attorney-General which I will read to that honourable member. That letter dated 23 September 2002 referred to various meetings: “These meetings resulted in a general consensus that the time is right to remove appeals to the Privy Council and establish a court of final appeal.” She was saying that that is what the Maori people of New Zealand had said at those various meetings. Now we know that that is very far from the truth because submission after submission to the select committee has indicated that that is not the case. Up and down this country Ngai Tahu do not agree. They say they want constitutional change before any consideration is given to the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. This Minister misled I believe the select committee at the time last year and continues to do so. 
We were told that the thing we should do is go to the hui at Turangi over the weekend and we would get the real indication from them and that we in the select committee and New Zealand First would be proved wrong. So what do we get from the hui report which I have read and I am sure members of the Labour Party do not even know exists? I shall quote from some of the answers regarding the final Court of Appeal: “Important issues require wider debate within Maoridom”; “Lack of information sharing at the Auckland hui”—the one to which the Minister referred; “Dissatisfied with consultation”; “No adequate consultation on bill. Consultation was bad. There was no notice. Need to go back to people hapu iwi.” That is the message to the Minister; and the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs supports the view that we should have much wider consultation on this bill. It is clear that the select committee was misled by this Minister last year and the Labour members especially the Maori members I am sure are now greatly concerned about the trend being taken in this legislation. 
As far as Vote Treaty Negotiations is concerned we have been talking about the year 2014 tonight! The answers we have been getting from the Minister in the chair on this issue indicate that it will be hundreds of years before the young Maori lad in Otara or up in Whangarei or in Porirua ever sees a fish or a dollar or anything. All the money is going to the consultants; all the money is going to the lawyers as I know from the way in which lawyers charge; and it is going to those people who get up there run around get briefs as bureaucrats sit on the tribunal and collect all the money. This situation will go on for ever. It is a disgrace and New Zealand First is going to do something about it. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments on the matters that have been raised in the estimates debate. First I would like to add my compliments to the Serious Fraud Office on the very good work it does and the fact that it has been warning the select committee of an increase in the number of scams. At times the select committee has been perhaps a little distracted if I may say with events of the past but that warning has been heard and taken up by this Government and it is consistent with the approach of the Serious Fraud Office which is a pre-emptive approach to the issue; it has sought and received some extra funding in its investigations. 
I might also touch on a second matter that has been raised by the member from the New Zealand First Party on the Supreme Court. Of course there are various views within Maoridom. The correspondence the member referred to was obviously in that time and context. There have been continuing discussions and debate of which he has been part but which he obviously did not put in the context of the written communication he had which was some time ago. Why should people in the Maori community all be of one mind? Certainly people in the Pakeha-European community and people in other communities in our society are not of one mind. So it is really important that we get the diversity of views. 
It is just a pity that the member did not take advantage of the opportunity to join us on the weekend—a beautiful weekend in Taupo—to be able to get for the full 3 days the absolute benefit for that total time rather than dipping out of the issue to suit one’s own position. 
I want to make my substantive comments relating to the portfolio in the estimates debate on treaty negotiations and I wish to acknowledge the comments made by my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and say that I do appreciate her acknowledgment that there is a bipartisan support for the settlement of historical grievance process. I appreciated that and took her comments on that process in the spirit of those who wish to ensure the claims are settled as quickly as possible. 
I draw the previous speaker’s attention to what was in the estimates. As members are aware the Crown’s objective has been to settle historical grievances in a timely fashion but it recognises that if we try to hurry this process artificially as the fiscal envelope process attempted to do we will delay what will be full and final and what we would call “durable settlements” which is what we intend to achieve. 
It is important to realise that in the estimates increased funding was given in support of this process and two particular output classes are relevant to this debate. The first is funding that assists the claimants to enter negotiations—negotiations with the claimants on behalf of the Crown—and second the implementation of those agreed settlements. It is important to acknowledge that $895000 has been allocated in addition. We have now an increased level of funding so that the negotiation activity can be consistent with the number of claimants who are entering into the process. 
 It is important to acknowledge that whereas 12 months ago the funding was given to set up claimant development teams—and that was important at the time to assist claimants to be able to get to the position of negotiations—this year the success of that process means we need additional funding for the actual negotiations. Therefore the funding will be directed to assist those in the negotiating process. So the increased funding means in practical terms that the Office of Treaty Settlements can establish a further negotiating team and that I think demonstrates our commitment to that process. 
I also would draw members’ attention to the second output class and that is representation of the Crown before the Waitangi Tribunal. I acknowledge the comments of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in this respect. It is important to understand that just funding to the tribunal itself will not necessarily increase the process. What was important we found in the analysis into how we increase the timeliness of the tribunal’s capacity to be able to hear and produce reports is that that is to a large extent dependent upon the input from the Crown into that process. Therefore the output class has increased by $302000 and that is funding that will go to the Crown to ensure that our funding will enable us to not delay the tribunal in its hearing of claims that come before it. 
It is also important to acknowledge the progress that has been made and although my colleague Mita Ririnui has made some reference to this it probably does bear some repetition. The first point is that we have made significant progress in the Taranaki claims and what that means is at times somewhat forgotten. Not only have we settled Ngati Ruanui and we have Ngati Tama’s bill before the select committee but also we are making considerable progress with Nga Rauru and Ngati Mutunga has come into negotiations again. So we should see a timely settlement there. Most important the Whanganui River Maori are also entering negotiations with us. 
Progress has been made in the Bay of Plenty the central North Island and in other parts of the country particularly Auckland and Northland. It is important because people are beginning to realise that this is a comprehensive thrust on the settlement of claims and not just a settlement in one region. At the moment I notice that the focus has been on the central North Island and although that is important it is not draining resources from other areas because that has been factored into our planning. If the mandating process is successful then over 100 claims will be able to be settled through that particular negotiation; that does not mean we are not attending to the needs of Ngati Whatua o Orakei in Auckland or Te Rarawa in the north or Te Arawa in terms of the lakes claims. All those claims are proceeding at the same time. 
The honourable member Georgina te Heuheu did raise some issues that were raised at the select committee and were heard by the Government in terms of its approach to this. We tried to explain in some detail and with a great deal of transparency the process that we are following here. Certainly we are always open to ways we can improve it. But the truth is that on issues like large natural groupings—and such issues were raised by members of the select committee—one cannot in fact have every particular claim particularly every whanau claim settled individually and at the same time argue that there should be a timely settlement of all claims. That lies behind the large natural groupings policy of the Crown and why we do not enter into negotiations with claimants until we get a consensus on what that grouping should be. I agree that ratification rates should be higher in some instances but in other instances it is very high so the question is whether there is evidence of uneven ratification numbers in that respect. 
Finally a great deal of discussion was had at the hui on the weekend as to how we can improve the governance arrangements and the Crown was certainly open to hearing how we can ensure we get the resources that will come through the historical process of settlement of claims to the beneficiaries which is the ultimate purpose of this process. So I would argue in this estimates debate that the Crown is placing its resources where they are most needed. 
Vote Attorney General agreed to. 
Vote Labour agreed to. 
Vote Parliamentary Counsel agreed to. 
Vote Serious Fraud agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Treaty Negotiations be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Maori Affairs 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 Before I launch into this particular portfolio area I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Hon Parekura Horomia in what we can describe as a very difficult portfolio. He has been under considerable pressure over a number of weeks but he has come through it with a big smile on his face and that is something that the Committee needs to appreciate. 
As a member of the Maori Affairs Committee that reviewed these estimates I am pleased to recommend them to the Committee—[ 
Interruption 
] I welcome into the Chamber Mr Rodney Hide who in his absence took a considerable battering from both sides of the Chamber. In 2003-04 the increases in Vote Maori Affairs primarily relate to the non-departmental output classes in the area of Maori broadcasting—in other words Maori television and Te Mangai Paho—organisations that have been subject to considerable scrutiny in this House. The appropriation sought for Maori Television Broadcasting increases from $30.5 million in 2002-03 to $37.9 million in this current financial round. The appropriation sought for the Maori Television Service increases from $5.9 million in 2002-03 to $12.9 million in this financial year. This level of funding is to be maintained in the out-years and I am sure that both sides of the Chamber are very pleased to hear that. This funding builds on the work already undertaken towards the establishment of the Maori Television Service. It includes the passing of the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Act earlier this year which marked a new era in New Zealand broadcasting and more important in Maori broadcasting. That legislation established the Maori Television Service as a statutory corporation providing it with full powers and abilities to proceed with the development of a Maori television channel. 
This channel as we know has been a long time coming and has been eagerly awaited by Maori and non-Maori around the country. I look forward to sitting in front of my television and viewing with the rest of my family some of the wonderful work that we can expect from Maori television. I was fortunate enough to get a glimpse of some of the material that Aotearoa Television produced and I have to admit that it was well beyond my expectation of what can be achieved in Maori broadcasting. This channel will provide us as Maori with a vehicle to tell our own stories in the way that we have traditionally told them in our own language and in a manner that will educate inform and entertain our young people—although there are members on the Opposition benches who do not appreciate quality broadcasting. 
These estimates also provide an increase in the appropriation to local Maori broadcasting. By that I refer to iwi radio. Funding for iwi radio is appropriated through the non-departmental output class 04 Maori radio broadcasting. That output class increases from $10.3 million in 2002-03 to $10.5 million in this current financial round. The additional funding of $250000 will be allocated to Te Mangai Paho for training and upskilling staff employed by iwi radio stations including technical managerial and governance training. I am sure that Mr Rodney Hide will appreciate that. 
These iwi radio stations are a part of the Maori communities that they provide coverage to and are at the very heart of the work this Government is doing to promote and revitalise the Maori language. The Government’s primary interest in Maori radio is in the role it can play in regenerating te reo Maori. It also has a major influence on increasing the amount of popular music in Maori further heightening interest of rangatahi in learning their language. Currently there are 21 iwi radio stations which provide Maori with the opportunity to tell stories about what is happening in their communities. Those stories might cover the swimming sports at the local school or events at the marae. That is what public broadcasting is all about. 
Speaking of local initiatives I can say that I was recently visited by the manager of Moana AM the Maori station in Tauranga which throughout the day has a component by which it educates the public—not just Maori but non-Maori as well—in local Maori history. It also provides classes in Maori language. Some innovative projects are currently taking place at the local level and I am sure they will be applauded throughout the country. 
In this particular portfolio I also want to touch on the subject of building the capacity of Maori organisations. My colleague the Hon John Tamihere and myself were fortunate to receive a delegation from East Africa yesterday and its mentors were present in the House today. One thing delegation members were interested in was learning about Maori structures both traditional and contemporary. They themselves are going through changes and want to learn from other indigenous peoples. I was very impressed with the quality of their presentation to us and the intensity of their inquiries. They were surprised to learn that after so many decades of colonisation traditional Maori structures still existed. We were pleased to advise them that by and large they existed partly because this Government and the previous Government were committed to building their capacity and that new structures were being designed to accommodate contemporary organisations. In that case we were referring to urban Maori authorities which play a major and important role in providing services and opportunities to urban Maori populations. The delegation also drew comparisons between the roles that their leaders and many Maori leaders play in the development of their people. There is not a great difference in how those leadership roles operate but it was good to see that there were some comparisons. 
In relation to capacity-building funds we heard criticisms in the Maori Affairs Committee that a lot of the organisations receiving assistance were conducting programmes that were considered to lack credibility. I think those criticisms were made only to gain political points at the select committee level because I was well aware of the programmes referred to. In fact those programmes are targeted at young people in high-risk communities whose opportunities in life are pretty limited or do not exist. The communities they belong to have a very high gang involvement. 
I recall the questions asked in this House by the Hon Murray McCully in relation to a capacity-building grant given to a skateboarding organisation in Gisborne. He considered it to be a waste of taxpayers’ funds. I can tell the member that that organisation looked for ways to work alongside a lot of the young people from a very high-risk community where gangs are active on a daily basis. It was an innovative programme that gave young people—even children of pre-school age—the opportunity to experience a lot of what the children of members in this House experience on a day-to-day basis. Whilst we might think that skateboarding is probably a waste of time it is in fact a highly skilled international sport. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 Given the major controversies that have surrounded the Maori Television Service and Te Mangai Paho in the recent past it is a pity that the major increases in funding to Vote Maori Affairs this year have gone into those areas. I say that because there are still so many areas where real impacts have yet to be made in the area of Maori moving forward. I am talking about the rise in obesity and diabetes which are reaching epidemic proportions in Maori communities. While we might listen to the applause of members on the other side in relation to the money that is going into Maori television there are many who would say and I would be one that they would rather see money being poured into improving the life chances of our little ones—mainly into their health and into the basic things they need to learn to improve their opportunities in life. 
As I say it is a pity that the major increases in funding have gone into Maori broadcasting. There is an increase of approximately $7.3 million for the making of programmes and $7.075 million for the operation of the Maori Television Service. We voted against the bill that set up the Maori Television Service. From my point of view that was difficult but the reason we voted against it was that its history has been so shambolic. We still have no date for that service coming on air. There is nothing yet to indicate to us that the people responsible for setting it up know what they are doing. They have gone quiet. Other than a massive advertisement in the newspapers calling for appointments to 140-odd positions we have no idea whether the money that has gone in so far will have been worth spending. We say that not on our own behalf but on behalf of the taxpayers whose money it is. 
I would like to see the Minister move to make some real progress on the health of our little ones and the well-being of our elderly. The recent report on mortality rates among Maori and Pacific Island people gives one great cause for concern. How much will a Maori television service help those issues? In my view it is very doubtful that they will have any impact at all. 
The other area I want to spend a little time on— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: They’re sick of watching  
Coronation Street 
. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I do not think they will stop watching  
Coronation Street 
 unfortunately. Like most New Zealanders they are glued to it just as they are glued to  
Shortland Street 
. However people are entitled to spend their recreational time as they see fit just as long as while they are doing so they think about the fact that we are all getting overweight in the process. That is looming as a major issue for health funding and health needs in the future. 
The other aspect of the vote is a slight reduction in real development activities which is to be regretted. There is less for facilitation and brokerage and more for State sector performance monitoring. That is a whole saga of its own particularly when Te Puni Kokiri has shown itself incapable of monitoring the body for which it is directly responsibility Te Mangai Paho. Te Puni Kokiri was asked during the estimates process whether it had a robust process in place to avoid the kind of debacle of recent months when members on this side of the House were telling the Minister what was going on in Te Mangai Paho. That is an absolute disgrace. 
In addition to that we see money going into Te Puni Kokiri annually to monitor the big State sector agencies. It cannot even monitor Te Mangai Paho properly so we are kidding ourselves that it is capable of monitoring big-spending agencies. After all while we might review the spending that goes on in Te Puni Kokiri who will be accountable for that spending? Nobody seems to be chasing down the millions of dollars that are going to waste in big agencies on the closing the gaps programme or reducing inequalities or whatever one wants to call it. Whatever it is nobody is monitoring that. It is time that some focus was put on the money being spent in those big agencies. If major health issues are looming for Maori people we have to ask what was the purpose of “gaps” money going into for instance the Ministry of Health? Until some proper benchmarks are set and some proper monitoring is going on we will never know the purpose of it. We will only see the results and the results are shameful so on and on it goes. 
In slight defence of Te Puni Kokiri—and the committee certainly realised this—the issue of its ability to monitor the big spending agencies is a farce. Trevor Mallard announced a review of Te Puni Kokiri following the debacle over Te Mangai Paho and as part of that review I hope that the ministry’s “sheriff role”—it is like a sheriff riding without guns—will be reviewed. The committee expressed concerns about whether Te Puni Kokiri was properly resourced to monitor the big agencies particularly when it has had difficulty monitoring Te Mangai Paho and whether it gets cooperation from the big spending agencies because they appear to be very clever at avoiding monitoring. 
While I am mindful that Te Puni Kokiri has a role in that area at the moment I reiterate the concerns that members of the committee expressed about whether that role is appropriate for a ministry that calls itself—and would like to see itself—as a development ministry. In my view somebody else should chase the big-spending agencies. Maybe Te Puni Kokiri would like to see itself free of that role anyway. There are other departments and agencies including Audit New Zealand and the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit. Why could they not monitor the big agencies? Why should taxpayers’ money be spent on a small agency like Te Puni Kokiri that has difficulty monitoring another small agency like Te Mangai Paho so that it can chase down the big agencies? The Minister should take note of that issue and if it is not included in the current review it should be. 
Lastly I come to the issue of the Minister himself. I certainly saw the Minister in full force at the hui in Paeroa. Yes he is right—on the marae he is great and I support him. He gave a great performance at the foreshore and seabed hui in Paeroa but the fact of the matter is that when one takes the ministerial warrant one takes the responsibilities that come with it. Being able to engage with Maori up and down the country is a very small part of the responsibility that goes with that warrant. A big part of it is discharging one’s responsibilities here in Parliament being accountable for the money being spent— 
Jill Pettis 
: And delivering to the people which we are doing. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Did that member hear me? Is she worried about the health of little Maori children and the poverty that exists in various parts of the country ? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
:  
A ki a koe e te rangatira. E te whanaunga rangatira kei te Minita kei te mihi nunui ki a koe mo to mahi kei te awhi i a matau. He iwi kotahi tatou mo nga motu. No reira tena ra koe. Kai wareware i a matou mo nga mema ki tenei taha kei te mahi kaha mo nga kaimahi mo te Tari o Te Puni Kokiri. No reira Leith mo to ropu mo te kaimahi kai te mihi kai te mihi kai te mihi nunui ki a koutou. 
I was acknowledging firstly you Madam Chairperson as the Chair and secondly my relation Parekura Horomia as the Minister in the chair and was acknowledging the work that he has been doing in bringing our people together and supporting them. I particularly wanted to acknowledge the fine work that the workers at Te Puni Kokiri conduct under the leadership of their chief executive officer Leith Comer. Maori come from a range of communities that at times can be most ungrateful and thankless with regard to the efforts that are made on their behalf—they never seem to be good enough. So at given points of time in this House it is very important that we acknowledge the difficulties that a number of people who engage with our communities on our behalf work under. To that extent I wanted to acknowledge on behalf of members on this side of the House the work and commitment of the workers of Te Puni Kokiri. 
 I think it is extraordinarily rich that a certain member of the National Party sits on that side of the Chamber. When I open the  
Dominion Post  
I read that the leader of that party says that Maori cannot be trusted yet Georgina te Heuheu has the temerity and the audacity to come into this Parliament and talk on behalf of that party. That is a disgrace. Something will have to happen pretty soon because I tell members that for “Wild Bill” the dipstick from Dipton to make that particular comment must have been— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member must refer to other members by their correct names. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have dealt with the matter Mr Hide. The matter has been dealt with. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: It is two points of order in a row. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Hide— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Number one: Jill Pettis was calling out right through my point of order. That is out of order and you did not stop her. Number two: I took offence at what the Hon John Tamihere said. You did not allow me the opportunity to give my point of order. You sat me down before I had finished. Secondly you did not ask him to withdraw and apologise. I thank the Minister for doing that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. I have dealt with— 
Rodney Hide 
: What is the point of making a point of order when you do not listen to it? And do not wave your hand you queer cow over there. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member has dealt with it. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The real point I wanted to make about— 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I have just taken offence at the comment that member has made and I want him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes it was. Did you hear what he said? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but I did not hear an offensive comment. I tell Mr Hide and members that there will be silence during points of order and when I am ruling on points of order. I will now ask the member whether—I did not hear it—he made an offensive comment to Jill Pettis. 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I want to put it on the record that when the honourable member from Dipton took part in the Fight for Life promotion last year he was called—it was on all the posters—“Wild Bill from Dipton”. I am only recording what is publicly and widely acknowledged and known. 
The Leader of the Opposition has definitely lost it. He is actually saying to the New Zealand public that if they want to support the National Party they have to be on an income of $60000 or above and come from a European community—preferably on the right side of town. National is now doing exactly what Maurice Williamson said— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is an estimates debate on Vote Maori Affairs and has nothing to do with members of this Parliament. The member’s comments should be related solely to Vote Maori Affairs. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is correct. I ask the member to come back to the estimates debate. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Coming back to the estimates debate I note that the Maori Television Service has had an extra appropriation of about $7.4 million made to it. I am given to understand because I have very good contacts in the Maori community that there are a number of productions in the can. One of them is about the leadership of the Hon Bill English. In that regard taxpayers’ money will be spent to this extent. What will happen in that particular— 
Government Member 
: It’s a comedy. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No it is not a comedy but it does track the political exploits of this member. To the extent that taxpayers’ money—good money—is being spent on that I am saying that in exploring the exploits of this wonderful member we have to start to understand that what Maurice Williamson is saying quite clearly—and he will be on the box he will be on Maori television as well—is that the National Party now is focused solely on 20 percent of the vote in this nation. It has nothing to do with community. It has nothing to do with nationhood. [ 
Interruption 
] Madam Chair? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. The allocation is 5 minutes only. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: There has been a Speaker’s ruling with regard to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member raising a point of order? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am raising a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Point of order John Tamihere. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am seeking a second call to this extent: I was under the understanding that Speakers’ rulings with regard to our seeking a further call in terms of 5-minute speaking times had been waived till the end of this year. That was a decision made by the Committee of the whole House. 
Dail Jones 
: I think that the agreement on the estimates debate is that there are two 10-minute speeches at the beginning and there are 5-minute speeches afterwards. That ruling was given by the Chairperson at the beginning of this estimates debate. The member’s point of order is specious. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I also remind members that the Minister in the chair can have a second call but no one else. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is a matter of some concern that I wish to raise. There are two parts to it. 
I have just come down to the Chamber to do the last hour of duty for the Green MPs only to discover that of the 36 minutes that we had been allocated for this estimates debate we have so far received only 22 minutes’ debating time. So we are about to be short-changed by 14 minutes—[ 
Interruption 
] I fully appreciate that and I was going to come to it. My concern is that there was a Business Committee agreement at the outset of this process which all parties agreed to. There was a time allocation submitted by David Benson-Pope. We respected that agreement—that we would get 36 minutes in this debate. We allocated our members to speak to the votes they wished to speak to. In three of our cases members wanted to speak to the votes of Ministers who are lower down in the order—Mr Mark Burton and Mr Paul Swain twice. I now find that with this debate due to finish in less than 15 minutes’ time our last three MPs will not have the opportunity to speak and I think that is grossly unfair because an agreement was reached and that agreement will now be broken. 
Secondly there seems to be a perverse incentive in this place that if people behave well they actually get penalised. I think this is the first point of order that the Greens have raised in this whole 8-hour debate yet we are the party that proportionately will suffer most because of the time running out. I acknowledge that parties like New Zealand First are also missing out—and even Labour is missing out. The reverse seems to be the case if parties perpetually raise points of order; they end up with extra time. One party in this House—ACT—has had 9 minutes more in this debate than was agreed by the Business Committee. 
So there are two things that I seek from you. The first is that you take some time to discuss with the Speaker—I do not think it quite warrants our recalling the Speaker at this stage—how the situation was allowed to happen and to look for a remedy to the situation so that parties actually get their fair time in the estimates debate. For that matter Ministers need to have a fair chance to talk to the estimates for their votes. One possible solution would be for you to subtract from a party’s time allocation the time it has spent raising points of order during the debate—if the debate has to remain a fixed-time debate. The second thing I ask of you is an immediate remedy which is that this debate be extended by at least the 9 minutes that one party has received above its allocation and preferably by the amount of time necessary to enable those parties that have not had their full allocation to be able to take up that allocation. 
So I seek leave for this debate to be extended to give sufficient time for those parties that have been short-changed because other parties have taken points of order to have their fair share. Perhaps I could invite the chief Government whip to advise us of how much time that would involve. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Briefly I want to say I really sympathise with the member over the issues he has raised. He was not able to be in the Chamber earlier when a good deal of the time was consumed by points of order. It is a matter of deep regret that we did indeed lose so much time. Unfortunately that was not because of the breaking of a formal agreement of the Business Committee. I think that because tonight we have experienced one party showing total disregard for the goodwill on which relations in this Parliament have to be based agreements reached in good faith on the part of some are no longer enough and I think in future we will have to have formal agreements by the Business Committee that are ratified in the House before such debates start. It is a matter of regret that we cannot agree to the leave that the member is seeking. To do so would further reward the bad behaviour that got us to this point unfortunately and further delay the business of the House. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Madam Chair first I understood that when leave is sought there is a requirement for the Chair to put it forthwith and not entertain further points of order as you just did. I am also concerned about the bad interpretation that we just heard from Mr Burton. ACT had accepted that there had been a genuine misunderstanding. I had been happy to restrict my speech to 5 minutes but it was the intemperate and nasty language from the senior Government whip that caused the extra minutes. The Government will have to learn that it cannot be provocative—that if it dishes it out it will get it back. That is the point. ACT will always retaliate when we get that sort of nonsense from Mr David Benson-Pope. However it is my earlier point that I want to impress upon you. When leave is sought I understand it is a requirement of the Chair to put it forthwith. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will come to that in a minute. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am rather surprised and frankly somewhat disappointed by the statement that Mr Shirley has just made. I think that my conduct in the face of very severe provocation by him earlier in the Committee was entirely moderate and temperate. [ 
Interruption 
] I provided the Committee with the information that was needed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have warned members once about speaking while points of order are being heard. This is the final warning. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I take offence at Mr Shirley’s accusation— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: This isn’t a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have given a warning. It is up to me to rule whether this is a point of order. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I take offence at the suggestion which would be refuted by anyone present in the Committee that my behaviour was intemperate immoderate or offensive if that word was used as well. I ask Mr Shirley to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I do not think that is necessary. An informal agreement between the whips was entered into; it was not an agreement of the Business Committee. It is a matter that must be sorted out between the whips. It is not a matter on which I can rule. The debate time is fixed in the Standing Orders. I refer members to page 95 of the Standing Orders. It is not within the Committee’s power to put leave to extend the time of the debate. It is a matter that the House would have to address. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I wish to foreshadow that when the House does resume I will be seeking leave for it to go back into Committee to extend this debate. [ 
Interruption 
] I seek your guidance. To enable my request to happen do I need to recall the Speaker now or can I make that request when the Speaker returns? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: You can make that request when the Speaker returns. Having just taken advice I note that we will have completed the estimates and put the vote before progress is reported so it would have to be done now. 
ROD DONALD 
: Having received your advice I will ask one further question. What happens to all the votes that we have not taken? Do they all have to be taken within the 8 hours or is the Government not able to spend those budgets if they do not— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No they will be put as one vote at the end of the 8 hours. 
ROD DONALD 
: In that case I request that the Speaker be recalled so that I can seek leave for this debate to be extended. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Speaker members wish to raise the matter that there is insufficient time for this debate. Leave has been sought to extend the time of the debate and your ruling is sought on that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no difficulty. If anyone wants to seek leave now he or she can. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate to be extended by the amount of time which parties have not been able to utilise as per the allocation done by the senior Government whip. In the case of the Green Party we have been able to use only 22 minutes of the 36 minutes allocated to us. I would like briefly to make the observation that there appears to be a perverse incentive during this debate whereby if one behaves well one misses out on time and if one behaves badly one gets extra time. I think that wider matter needs to be addressed by you in consultation with the Business Committee but for now I seek leave for extra time to enable us to get our fair share of this debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I take the leave which I will do immediately I point out that there was no Business Committee agreement on the allocation of time for the estimates debate. Indeed the allocation of the time for the estimates debate was never discussed at the Business Committee. If the whips work out agreements it is incumbent on them to settle disputes about them and not have the time of the House wasted by agreements being litigated on the floor of the House. Both Mr McGee and I were present at the Business Committee. Leave is sought to extend the debate. Is there any objection? There is. 
Debate resumed. 
In Committee 
Vote Maori Affairs  
(continued) 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 The Maori television vote has increased from $30.59 million in 2002-03 to $37.983 million in 2003-04 which is an increase of $7.392 million. That funding increase was sought for the non-departmental output class “Maori Television Broadcasting”. 
The chief executive officer of Te Puni Kokiri has said that he has confidence in the ability of the Maori Television Service to ascertain its operational requirements. New Zealand First has queried that. We have questioned the estimated number of staff who are to be employed and have asked for those positions to be identified along with the skills and qualifications of the applicants and the interview format that will be used—especially after the debacle over the appointment of Mr Davies. 
According to the Maori television bill the television service is to teach te reo hopefully to a standard of fluency and to provide for the retention of protocol. If this form of learning through this medium is sufficient New Zealand First will be asking how this learning process will be facilitated. New Zealand First would expect a review to see who has learnt the language fluently and understands the nuts and bolts of the tikanga. I ask as I did before who will be facilitating the learning process of the viewers. 
The sum of $37.983 million is a lot to account for. New Zealand First will expect nothing less than positive results in the administration of Maori television. I ask again what the cost to the consumer will be and whether all Maori will receive this transmission. If the tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Maori language this had better happen. The public demands it because accountability is required by the taxpayer. Te Mangai Paho has been the laughing stock of the nation. Here we go again. The inadequacies of this organisation have been revealed in the House along with the questionable reporting system. This has come to a cost of $10.57 million with additional funds of $250000 for staff training. This organisation had better get it right because we are tired and Maori are tired of the adverse adjectives that the public freely throw about. 
Would not all this money be put to better use in education employment housing and health? Two weeks ago my colleagues in New Zealand First and I spent a day at the Auckland remand prison and at the Paremoremo maximum security prison. I ask members to guess who the majority of the inmates were. Can we keep Maori out of prisons by giving grants for a skateboard club to redevelop a skateboard bowl or grants to teach Maori how to break-dance without being injured? This is called capacity building they say! Is this what we call capacity building? What is the process we are following? Is there any potential for positive development? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The time allocated to the consideration of the estimates referred to in the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill has expired. I am now required to put as one question the remaining votes and provisions of the bill as per Standing Order 325. 
The question was put that Vote ACC Vote Child Youth and Family Services Vote Commerce Vote Communications Vote Community and Voluntary Sector Vote Conservation Vote Consumer Affairs Vote Corrections Vote Courts Vote Customs Vote Defence Vote Defence Force Vote Emergency Management Vote Environment Vote Immigration Vote Internal Affairs Vote Lands Vote Local Government Vote Maori Affairs Vote National Archives Vote National Library Vote Official Development Assistance Vote Police Vote Racing Vote Senior Citizens Vote State-Owned Enterprises; Vote Statistics Vote Tourism Vote Transport Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Defence) Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Social Development) Vote Women’s Affairs Vote Youth Affairs the preamble clauses 1 to 13 and schedule 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the votes the preamble clauses 1 to 13 and schedule 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Votes preamble clauses 1 to 13 and schedule 6 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you ruled earlier on the issue of leave to extend the estimates debate I did not hear you give a view on my request that you take some time to look at the whole issue of how the 8-hour estimates debate is allocated. I am not asking you for a decision; I am asking for your formal consideration of the problem that we have just faced. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders deal with that. There is a Standing Orders Committee. I am perfectly happy to have time set aside at that committee to consider the issue and I think that is the appropriate place to do it. I invite the member if he so wishes to make a short submission to the committee and I will ensure it is heard.