Volume 607 Week 21 - Tuesday 8 April 2003 
Volume 607 Week 21 - Tuesday 8 April 2003 
[Volume:607;Page:4887] 
Tuesday 8 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Delegation from Australia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Defence Subcommittee of the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade from the Commonwealth of Australia led by the Hon Bruce Scott MP are present in the gallery. 
New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill to be extended to 30 October 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Primary Health Organisations—Reports 
1. STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What recent reports has she received regarding the establishment of primary health organisations? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen many positive reports following the announcement of a further 22 primary health organisations taking the number to 34 across the country and covering over 1 million people. For example Dr Glen Davies from the newly formed Lake Taupo primary health organisation stated: “I think it’s a really positive concept to be putting more money into primary health-care.” He went on to say that the $15 consultation fee would mean that very sick patients could afford to see their doctor more often and be managed more closely which will cut down hospital visits and entries. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What are some of the improvements in primary health-care that primary health organisations will deliver? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: More patients will see their health providers more often and sooner. Already TaPasefika Health Trust one of the first primary health organisations to be established is seeing 20 percent more patients and other primary health organisations are targeting the traditionally hard-to-reach patients. For example the Health West primary health organisation is working with hospital emergency departments to follow up on the approximately 30 percent of people attending it who do not have a general practitioner. These strategies will ultimately improve the health outcomes for many people who have long endured a poor health status. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What is her response to the comments of Tricia Briscoe of the New Zealand Medical Association that “initially increasing funding through a small number of PHOs is inequitable damaging to general practice and not in the interests of the community” and does she stand by general practitioners’ right to set fees or will she cap co-payments? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those three questions can be answered. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not agree with Tricia Briscoe from the New Zealand Medical Association. I find it interesting that last week I launched a primary health organisation Health Rotorua—gaining the access formula—of which she is a member. 
Pita Paraone 
: Are the primary health organisations a means by which the Government will continue to cover the fact that many general practitioners are now charging in excess of $20 for the treatment of children under the age of 6 years? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Primary health organisations have been established to bring down the price of primary health-care over time for all New Zealanders starting with those with the greatest need. However in the last Budget this Government increased the payment to doctors who provide for under-sixes thereby ensuring that we keep the cost for those under-sixes as low as possible. 
Heather Roy 
: Can the Minister deny that under her new interim formula the great majority of male European superannuitants who do not have a community services card are funded at $17 a year while male Maori and Pacific Islander superannuitants on the same income are funded at over three times higher than that at $53 a year when they have exactly the same health needs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The funding formula allows initially for those people who have the highest needs to receive the highest funding. However as we have said we will increase that funding over time. Within the next year or two we hope to ensure that all people over 65 years of age will have more affordable health-care as well as all young people under 18 years. That is a huge commitment by any Government. We have been prepared to put $400 million in this year and in the next 2 years to make sure that it happens. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How many of the 22 primary health organisations that have been established include a multi-disciplinary team of health professionals such as pharmacists and complementary health practitioners as was promised when primary health organisations were established? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All primary health organisations have doctors and nurses as their core health professionals. Some of those primary health organisations have included other health professionals. It is the aim to ensure that over time more are included. However those health professionals must be prepared to be part of a primary health organisation. I know that all of them are working with other health providers to ensure that they include them over time. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister concerned at recent comments pertaining to primary health organisations directing general practitioners to set time limits of 9 minutes for each consultation and alleging that general practitioners are poaching patients from private practices; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That comment was made by the Leader of the Opposition in January about TaPasefika Health Trust a primary health organisation in south Auckland. It was subsequently denied by the people of that trust who said it was not true. It is interesting to see that the recent  
New Zealand Doctor 
 magazine did a survey of doctors who said that they have very little fear that there would be 6-minute medicine in New Zealand. 
Iraq—Apology to United States 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did the Prime Minister last week instruct the New Zealand Ambassador to the United States of America Mr John Wood to apologise and who are the individuals if any who have accepted the prime ministerial apology? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Because offence had been taken and I elected to deal with the matter. No particular individual has been asked to accept anything. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Prime Minister’s refusal to advise the House whom she has apologised to because no one has accepted her apology or is it because she is embarrassed that by her armchair generalship she has made an international fool of herself? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No one was asked to accept anything. An apology was conveyed. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the Prime Minister’s belief that she is an expert on foreign affairs when did it become bleedingly obvious to her that the comments she made—indicating she wished that Al Gore had won the election—would be offensive to the Bush administration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Leaving aside the obvious inaccuracies in that statement I say that by the end of the week it was clear to me I had to deal with the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Prime Minister advise the House and the country whether her apology is because “offence had been taken”—her words—or because she was just plain wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My apology was because offence had been taken. 
Keith Locke 
: If there was a diplomacy problem was it not because George Bush rejected a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis; and will the Prime Minister be asking George Bush for an apology for invading Iraq violating international law and the UN charter and causing such death and destruction? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Every member has a right to ask a question in this Parliament and I remind members of that. I will not have interjections during the asking of a question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I will not be asking for such an apology. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister again given her answer to me does she therefore stick by her words that the war was not going according to plan and that this war would not have happened if Al Gore had been the President—despite the fact that Mr Gore supports the American invasion of Iraq? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not intend to elaborate any further on the comments. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the last comment that member will make. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I admit I made a comment and I apologise for that. But so did the Prime Minister. Will you talk to her too? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the Prime Minister make any comment at all. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Prime Minister now accept that her comments suggesting that the war in Iraq might not have happened under an Al Gore presidency were not only extremely ill-informed but also totally inappropriate as Al Gore is a known hawk on the need to enforce a regime change in Iraq with or without further UN resolutions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I accept that offence was taken—which is why I offered the apology. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Let us get this clear from the Prime Minister: is it her position that she believes she was right on both counts—which offended the United States and people in the United States administration—and that she has apologised only because someone has taken offence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Comments have been grossly distorted. I do not intend to elaborate on them. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When the Prime Minister last week announced that it was “bleedingly obvious” that the war was not going to plan where did she get her information from; was it from our traditional allies the United States Britain and Australia or did she get her information from the Iraqi Minister of Information who still believes that the Americans are not in Baghdad? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not think anyone takes the latter gentleman seriously. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table various quotations from website references together with excerpts from David Halberstam’s new book  
War in a Time of Peace 
 which clearly outline that Al Gore’s position is exactly the same as President Bush’s position. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is obviously the leader of this country and is speaking in that capacity on this country’s defence and foreign policy. Mr Prebble asked her a very very serious question. He asked her–and we would all like to know this—where she got her information from. She completely denied Parliament an answer. She treated it frivolously and referred to the Minister of Information for Iraq not being taken seriously. But Mr Prebble did not ask her that; he gave that as an alternative. She clearly showed that she did not get the information from the Iraqi Minister of Information. Therefore the outstanding question still lies: where did she get it from? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you this question: is there one New Zealander who believes what you have just said on that matter—that she answered the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. He will now stand and withdraw and apologise for questioning my ruling. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not questioning your ruling; I am asking for some clarification. Do you believe there would be one New Zealander who believes that the Prime Minister answered Mr Prebble’s question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does not matter what I believe or what any other New Zealander believes. I have to adjudge whether she addressed the question. She did. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I look at the questions today I see there are a number on this subject. Since the Prime Minister has now assured the House that her remarks have been misinterpreted—I think that is the phrase she gave—or distorted surely it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House of what she really did say last week because we would like to know what the apology was actually for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for the Prime Minister not for the Speaker. 
Domestic Purposes Benefit—Penalties 
3.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Social Services and Employment 
: Is he planning to raise the $22 a child penalty that can be deducted from a single mother’s domestic purposes benefit if the father is unknown; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 The Government believes that in other than exceptional circumstances fathers should be responsible financially for their children. We are therefore considering a range of options to ensure that more liable parents are financially responsible for their children. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister given any consideration to granting an exemption so that women who do not name the father because they genuinely fear violence and/or abuse do not have their benefits cut; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: For the information of the House beneficiaries who are taking active steps to identify the parent are exempt. If the child was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation the beneficiary is exempt. If there is insufficient evidence to identify the other parent the beneficiary is exempt. Of course parents who are in a situation where violence is involved can use the domestic violence legislation to ensure that that partner is dealt with. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What measures is the Government taking to encourage more parents to be financially responsible for their children? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In 2001 the Labour-Alliance Government increased and indexed the minimum liable-parent contribution. We are now also involved in case management of sole parent clients and that has proved to be very useful in making people aware of their responsibilities in relation to child support applications and of how to ensure that fathers are made aware of their responsibilities. We are now exploring a range of other options which will hopefully come to fruition later on this year. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister explain why the department when in some cases it has a fully completed birth certificate on file that names the father does not seek to collect child support—a foolishness that could be costing the taxpayer up to $11 million per year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I outlined before the reasons that a person may well be exempt. In fact what we are exploring at the present time is the State itself seeking family support to ensure that in every possible case application is made. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is it not true that raising the $22 penalty will lead to an increase in supplementary benefits being claimed so that in reality his proposal is a meaningless sop to public opinion? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I should advise the House that this rate has not been lifted since 1992 while at least all other benefit payments have been lifted during that period of time. I think that at least one of the things we should be doing is ensuring the penalty keeps up with inflation. But one of the points that the member raises is quite right: whatever we do here we must make sure that we understand that these payments are for children. We want to ensure they are fed housed and clothed properly and not penalised by any changes that we undertake. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister assure the House that he does intend to match his tough talk with action; if so exactly what is his proposed time frame for the necessary law changes in the light of the fact that this issue has been on the never-never since he has been the Minister? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I always leave the tough talk to Dr Newman. What we are introducing here are sensible changes around liable parents who should be supporting their children. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that any move to obtain more information about parentage should be in the long-term best interests of the child; if so does he agree that acquiring biological information about the father could save a child’s life given what we know about genetic predisposition to disease? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I do agree. I would also like to add that any child has the right to know who his or her father is and to get emotional and financial support from that person. 
Sue Bradford 
: How is the Minister dealing with the contradiction between his support for ending child poverty while at the same time he is launching initiatives to cut income levels even further for some children because of a perceived failing on the part of their mother? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Easily. We are not trying to do something that will introduce hardship into these households. As I mentioned before since 1992 the level of this penalty has not been lifted while the payment to these beneficiaries has been lifted. What we are doing here is part of a suite of changes and we will ensure it does not result in undue hardship for a family. 
Iraq—Apology to United States 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What is the full text of her apology to the Bush administration for offence caused by her comments about the war in Iraq? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I gave the New Zealand Ambassador to the United States verbal authorisation to convey my apology for the offence that had been taken. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is public reference to the fact that a letter was delivered. The Prime Minister will be aware of that. It is treating this House lightly if she does not answer the question by telling us what was in the letter which has been referred to publicly by her office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister was asked a specific question by the member. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is wanting a very early exit. The Leader of the Opposition asked a very specific question. I listened to the answer. It was a very specific answer. We accept members at their word when they do that and that is where the matter rests. But the member now has supplementary questions. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I asked a specific question about text not about verbal assurances. There is public record of the text. It is a matter of national importance. The Prime Minister simply has not even attempted to answer the question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister was asked a specific question. I adjudged she gave an answer to it. She can answer the question as she wishes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may well have adjudged that that was sufficient given her answer excepting that Mr English has very clearly pointed out to you the word “text” and what he meant. There is also a convention in the House that you look after new members or inexperienced members of Parliament but you do not look after Prime Ministers who should be able to look after themselves and that is the point I want to raise with you. The Prime Minister has been asked a very clear question—[ 
Interruption 
] I will look after you you pup but not her. There is a convention in the House that backbenchers and new members of Parliament are looked after by the Speaker but Prime Ministers are not. Mr English is asking a very clear question about the text and that having been brought to your attention I think you should make sure she answers properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I adjudged the Prime Minister did give an answer that was within the Standing Orders but that is what supplementary questions are for—to elicit further information. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a bit of a problem here. Under Standing Order 372(2) “the reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked”. The subject matter of this question was the full text of her apology. In no way can the Prime Minister’s answer be said to be on that subject matter. She was referring to some verbal conversations that she had had unless the Prime Minister—and perhaps this is how you are interpreting it and maybe that will be a matter for a letter—was giving you an assurance that there is no text and that is how she is answering the question. But if she is not giving an assurance—and she appears to be reluctant to take part in these points of order—that there is no text then her answer cannot be said to come within Standing Order 372. It is an answer to a question that was not asked. The question she was asked was what the full text of the apology is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that nobody knows that the Prime Minister has produced any text. It could for example have been put in the ambassador’s words. We do not know. That is why supplementary questions are allowed. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given her comment that “People are usually in no doubt what I mean about things.” what does she mean when she is saying to the US Government that she apologises for her comments on the war? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It was clear to me that offence had been taken to the reference to Mr Gore and I apologised for the offence that had been taken. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition I do endeavour to be clear about things. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for that assurance of clarity. Would she tell us now in respect of the Al Gore comments whether she was right or wrong? Yes or no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use the last few words. He can certainly ask the question. The Prime Minister can decide how she answers. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have nothing further to say about the comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is “rhubarb” to be an answer adequate for the Prime Minister in this House on such a serious matter? She rises to her feet on a matter of national importance—[ 
Interruption 
] Let me finish. I have not finished yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down when I stand up. Please sit down. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have not finished my point of order—as long as you are clear about that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member certainly did not use the word “rhubarb”. I never heard that word used. The Prime Minister gave an answer and that was the answer with which she addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The word “rhubarb” is by way of an analogy. It is commonly understood in the English language to be a contemptuous answer to a serious issue. That is why I used it. I did not say she used the word “rhubarb”. I asked by way of analogy whether rhubarb was to be an adequate answer in this House. Will you deem it proper that whatever she says is an answer? Frankly when it comes to matters of international and foreign policy importance the Prime Minister is treating you and this House and the whole country with contempt. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer is no. I regard questions asked in this House as deserving an answer. That question got one. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer that was given was: “I am not going to give an answer.” or words to that effect. Standing Order 372(1) requires that an answer “must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest”. Do we take it then as the Prime Minster cannot tell us whether she believes she was right or wrong that if she was to say whether she was right or wrong that would not be consistent with the public interest? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Prime Minister declined to elaborate and she is entitled to do that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My patience with this issue is fast going. 
Rodney Hide 
: I am very sorry if that is the case Mr Speaker but in response to earlier points of order you said—and you told this House—that clarification is what supplementary questions are for. When the supplementary questions were put the Prime Minister said: “I’m not prepared to say anything more about this subject.” If that ruling stands then we can have every Minister coming down to this House each and every day and saying to any question that those Ministers do not feel like answering that they are not prepared to answer it. You are on record as saying that that is acceptable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. What I said was that the Prime Minister declined to elaborate. She is entitled to do that. 
Hon Bill English 
: In her capacity as the Prime Minister of New Zealand who says what she means does she stand by this statement: “I don’t think that September 11 under a Gore presidency would have had this consequence for Iraq.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Offence has been taken at that comment and I do not believe it is in the public interest to compound it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Perhaps I can just ask the Prime Minister this simple question: in relation to her apology does any text exist? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in my initial answer I gave verbal authorisation to the New Zealand ambassador to convey my apology. Diplomatic channels have worked. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not have put the question more simply. I just asked whether a text existed and no one in this House is any the wiser. All the Prime Minister had to do was say yes or no. The Prime Minister will not answer anything else but surely we are entitled to know whether a text exists. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked the question and the Prime Minister addressed the question with an answer. She is entitled to elaborate in the way she chooses. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is making a complete mockery of question time. The Leader of the Opposition has gone to the trouble of putting down a question asking whether there is a text. He asked that question but did not get an answer. Then we were told by you that all we had to do was ask a supplementary question. I have asked a supplementary question—I actually used up one of the other ones—just to find out whether there is a text and the Prime Minister will not even answer that. That is making a mockery of this House. In fact we deserve an apology from her now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Perhaps the Prime Minister could elaborate on the term “diplomatic channels” in the answer she gave. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I gave as I have said several times now verbal authorisation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Mr Wood to convey an apology. I did not instruct them on the means of conveyance. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is still not an adequate response from the Prime Minister. When we go down to the Clerk’s Office every day to lodge a question we have to be able to substantiate the question we are asking. There would be no reference on the Order Paper today to a text if there was not some indication somewhere—presumably in this case in the media confirmed by the Prime Minister’s office—that there was a text contained in a letter sent to the ambassador presumably. We are being treated with utter contempt by the Prime Minister when she does not answer the simple question: is there an instruction or is there an indication in a text form somewhere out of her office to the United States? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed there must be an authorisation. That authorisation must be in the form of some form of quotation from the media—the same media reporting a leadership coup in the National Party today. It does not follow—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to address the point of order only. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: My point is that the fact that something appears in the media does not make it true. 
Hon Bill English 
: That is absolutely right. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I thank the member. That is the point I was making. Therefore the fact that one could produce an authorisation especially if it was from the  
Dominion Post 
 
does not demonstrate that that was a fact. The Prime Minister gave an answer addressing the question and we are now back to the situation where the Opposition does not like the answer and is therefore going to barrack and yell because like badly behaved boys they cannot take the answer they have been given. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister’s elaboration did give the information. She certainly did address that part of the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take grave exception to the remarks made by the Leader of the House. It was a complete abuse of the point of order procedure. Stating under a point of order that people are badly behaved boys is out of order and I believe that with other remarks he should be asked to withdraw and apologise and you should think about expelling him from the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I am certainly going to ask him to withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You refused to call the members opposite to order when they barracked and yelled while I was talking to a point of order. It is out of order to make any comment while a point of order is being spoken to and I suggest that the entire Opposition should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. There is give and take on both sides. I regard that matter as now closed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that the Leader of the House has told us that it is clear that a text exists and presumably when the Prime Minister said “apology” that must be in it so she was quoting from it then under Standing Order 362: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may on a point of order require the Minister to lay the document on the Table.” I now require the Minister to table the apology. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there has been no quotation from anything. [ 
Interruption 
] I was going to allow the Hon Bill English a supplementary— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point of order is now getting to the point where it is getting past acceptability. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I just want to be clear where we have got to. Can I now assume that it is all right for us to send questions down to the Clerk’s Office that make assertions without providing the current burden of proof to back those questions? That is what we are effectively saying if we accept what Michael Cullen has told us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say quite specifically that members must authenticate a question. There is no corresponding obligation on Ministers answering and the Speaker cannot answer for Ministers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You said in reply to Mr Prebble that there was no quotation from any text. It has long been my observation in this House that for a Speaker to establish that he usually asks the Minister or in this case the Prime Minister first. He does not have a stab in the dark and think he can answer it himself. There was enough in the Prime Minister’s answer to open suspicion that she may have been quoting from a document as Mr Prebble raised in the first instance. Now would you ask her that and not make the decision yourself? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I did ask the Prime Minister to elaborate she did so and that addressed the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find it quite incredible. We have a situation where the Prime Minister has told us that she has given verbal advice to John Wood the ambassador that he can apologise. I have taken from further remarks that this was clearly put into a text and a message was sent to the ambassador—and of course it would have been to confirm it. I think that if those words are there that he is to apologise she was quoting from a document and she should be required to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. There was no quotation from a document. No quotation from a document was claimed by the Prime Minister. She did not refer to a document. Only if a Minister purports to quote does Standing Order 362 become engaged. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that the officials have written down any text relating to this apology; if so when will she tell us what is in that text? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member’s questions to me have been about a text of my apology. I have repeatedly said to him that I gave verbal authorisation. I then leave it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to convey it as it sees fit. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very straightforward question of a Prime Minister who regards herself as totally knowledgable in matters of foreign affairs. The simple question was whether she believed that officials had written down in any text the apology that was being given and if so when that would be displayed to the House. Is the Prime Minister asserting that she does not know whether officials have written it down or is it simply the case that she is totally embarrassed by the fact that it might be written down and we might discover what she was apologising for? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question by the member. I adjudged that she addressed it. 
Hon Bill English 
: You did not call us Mr Speaker. Supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had three so he will take— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I can be helpful here. We should go back to the primary question because I think the House is under some confusion. The question asked by the Hon Bill English was what was the text of her apology to be conveyed. I think that what we are hearing from the Prime Minister is that she has not apologised but the ambassador has. That is new information and maybe it would help the House if the Prime Minister would be clear on whether she has apologised to the Americans or whether the ambassador has apologised to the Americans. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I adjudged that the Prime Minister addressed that question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that her answers now lead us to believe that officials have apologised and not her and that she has apologised because of the offence that was taken not because of the statements is it her intention to apologise herself to the US Government for the statements that she made that it found offensive? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have given authorisation to the ambassador to convey the following: firstly my sorrow at the fact that offence had been taken my recognition that offence had been taken and my apology for the offence that had been taken. How the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade chooses to convey that is entirely up to it. 
Sexual Offenders—Community Protection 
5.  
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes have been made to better protect the community from recidivist behaviour by convicted sex offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Changes have been made to the Sentencing Act to the Parole Act and to operational practice. Collectively those have significantly increased the effectiveness and powers of agencies dealing with recidivist sex offenders. Preventive detention—effectively a life-long sentence—has been extended in scope to encompass a much wider group of offenders. Parole changes mean that public safety is the paramount consideration and that high-risk offenders serve the full term. Finally operational changes have resulted in a more thorough and professional assessment of offenders and better information-sharing between agencies. 
Tim Barnett 
: What other steps does he intend to take to ensure that Government agencies can more actively manage convicted sex offenders when released into the community? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: A range of further measures is planned. A best-practice model of information sharing and inter-agency collaboration will be established in Dunedin next month and progressively rolled out across the country. Legislative change will ensure that comprehensive information on convicted sex offenders is provided by the Department of Corrections to the police. Finally officials will report back to Ministers by 31 August on further proposals for active management of sex offenders in the community including a register extended supervision and control of convicted offenders beyond the normal period of parole. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister think that with this announcement he can wash his hands of any responsibility for the abuse of four young boys by Barry Allan Ryder in Christchurch while on parole last year given that when Mr Goff was in Opposition he campaigned relentlessly for immediate action and when he became Minister of Justice did absolutely nothing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No it was the member as Minister of Justice who did absolutely nothing. I as Minister of Justice amended the Sentencing Act to ensure that the sentence of preventive detention—that is a life-long sentence—is now imposed on Mr Ryder and Mr Ryder is likely to be imprisoned for the rest of his natural life as a result of that sentence. The member should apologise to the House for his utter incompetence and inability to do anything when he was Minister of Justice. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Can he confirm that my bill the Sex Offenders Registry Bill will be looked at by the Government as a serious option; if so why? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I can confirm that we will be looking seriously at a register as proposed by the member in her member’s bill. Although the police currently have registers—they have a criminal history database and a persons-of-interest database—there may be some advantage in having a comprehensive register that can be accessed by the police. However that will be an advantage only if there is a system of active management of sex offenders in the community in conjunction with that register. The register by itself is a means to an end not the end itself. 
Iraq—Apology to United States 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What did her apology to the Bush administration reported in the  
Dominion Post 
 7 April 2003 as being sent through New Zealand’s Ambassador in Washington relate to in its entirety and was it made unequivocally without qualification or reservation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Particular exception had been taken to comments relating to a presidential contender. No offence had been intended but given that it had been taken an apology was conveyed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Prime Minister’s famous self-made reputation for front-footing the issue would she tell us now whether her comments in respect of Al Gore were wrong or right? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in an earlier answer offence was taken at those comments and I do not judge it to be in the public interest to repeat them and compound the matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the Prime Minister’s continued repetition of the statement that offence was taken does she believe in her own experienced judgment that the comment she made was offensive or not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I know is that I intended no offence whatsoever. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister answer yes or no to the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ question—was her statement about Al Gore right or wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Some people including members of this House have distorted the comments. They were opinions and in the public interest I do not intend to elaborate on them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What did the Prime Minister intend if she did not intend to cause offence; and will she now release whatever is in writing concerning this matter in respect of the United States Ambassador and his communication with the US administration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I intended was to cause no offence whatsoever. That is why I asked our ambassador to convey my distress at the offence that had been taken when none was meant and to convey the apology. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have asked the Prime Minister whether she will release whatever is in writing in respect of this matter. Given that there are three questions on this matter and that it has been the subject for almost 15 minutes I think this Parliament is entitled to an honest answer from the Prime Minister for the first time today. I do not believe that we in this society are prepared to sit back any longer and take the actions of someone who unduly requires the protection of the Chair of this House even though she is an experienced politician. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were comments made in that point of order that were not in order. Mr Peters asked a question with two parts. The Prime Minister can address the second part if she wants to. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said several times I left it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to convey that apology by any means it saw fit. If the member wishes to pursue the matter it is up to him to pursue it with the Minister responsible. I have made it clear what my verbal instruction was. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the second allusion made by the Prime Minister today that she is somehow not responsible for administration. She actually said in the previous answer that if we wanted to find that information out we should approach Mr Wood or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That is disgraceful in respect of the level of accountability required of Ministers and in particular of the Prime Minister. I ask again whether the Prime Minister will give us advice about whether she will release that information. That is part of my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is entitled to tell members to take it up with the portfolio Minister and that is what she has done. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do ask you to reflect on the contortions that this Parliament has been put through by this Prime Minister supported by you to avoid answering a simple question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rodney Hide 
: We now have the preposterous— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rodney Hide 
: —situation where the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated now. 
Rodney Hide 
: —is responsible for her apology. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. I have told him three times to be seated. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just thrown out a member of this Parliament for asking a simple question which was of course in question No. 4 from Mr English. He asked for the full text. You did not tell him then to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the US Ambassador. No you felt it was fit for the Prime Minister to answer the question. She declined to and now you are straight-out protecting her. That is my party’s view. I ask you given that one of my colleagues has been expelled to ask the Prime Minister to answer the question that she has been asked over and over again at least five times: where is the text? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I told the member to leave the Chamber because he broke the Standing Orders not because he raised the point of order. I always protect members’ rights to raise points of order. That is where that matter ends. 
As far as answers are concerned I have to adjudge whether the Prime Minister addresses the question; I do not have to comment on the quality or otherwise of the answer. That is up to the Minister who gives the answer. I have adjudged that the Prime Minister addressed the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the course of that point of order the member accused you of protecting a Minister. I suggest that that is a direct challenge to your authority. The member should be required to withdraw and apologise for a charge of that sort. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I was prepared to pass that over as being a polemic but now my attention has been drawn to it I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you should have a good hard look at the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. On countless occasions the Speaker of this House has risen to say: “It is my job to protect members.” In this case it seems to me that you are protecting the Prime Minister. The allegation that you are protecting members is not of itself wrongful and to hasten to ask me to apologise in my view is wrong as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That was not the reason the member was asked to apologise. It was for questioning my authority. Of course I am here to protect all 120 members and I do. 
Hon Bill English 
: If as the Prime Minister says she meant no offence then how is it that she—someone so experienced in foreign affairs and so clever with words—managed to say in such an incompetent manner words that were so offensive if she never intended them to offend? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can only repeat that no offence whatsoever was intended. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have waited until now to raise this point of order because we have had a difficult question time mainly on account of many members on this side of the House feeling that the Prime Minister has not given in her answers the information she could have given. I ask your view on the following. Standing Order 372 “Replies” states: “(1) An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” Given that three questions on the Order Paper ask about the text of the Prime Minister’s letter a letter from Mr Wood or some instruction it seems to me you could rule that an answer must be given that is consistent with the public interest. It is true you have interpreted that she has answered the question but can you tell me where in her answers that Standing Order has been complied with as well? It seems to me that this whole issue would have been solved if the Prime Minister had merely said: “My understanding is that the text says X.” We would not then have had an issue and we probably would have been through question time by now. It seems to me that Standing Order 372(1) has not been complied with and I ask you to give a ruling on how that fits in with the answers Ministers or Prime Ministers give. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point in the way he has raised it. I am ready to rule. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I would like to raise a different aspect to this matter because I think we have run into a problem that has come about from the rulings you have given this year with regard to the apportioning of questions. In the past when we had a situation of a Minister clearly not answering a question—a question that he or she must have known the answer to—Speakers got over that problem by allowing an MP to ask another question. The dilemma we have here is that the Prime Minister was asked a question—to take just one example and I do not know the answer to it—about whether there was actually a text of the apology. I do not know how many questions have been asked on that matter. I think I have asked the question three times and the Leader of the Opposition has asked it twice. In the case of my party I have had to use up questions that we would have asked other Ministers just to try to get the Prime Minister to answer the question put to her—but she has not. 
I suggest that what you ought to do in a flagrant case like this one is to indicate to parties that you will allow them extra questions. It is completely within your power as Speaker to do that. I am not suggesting that you are protecting the Prime Minister; rather I will put it this way. Unlike the situation in previous Parliaments when a Minister did not answer a question put to him or her by an MP—a question that everyone knew he or she must have known the answer to—if you are to rule now that you will not allow extra questions then the effect of that will be a huge shift from the Opposition to the Government. It is actually a statement to Ministers that they really do not need to answer any question. All they have to do is keep on prevaricating and watch the Opposition parties use up all their questions. 
It would be a very good ruling for you now to say that you realise that this has happened and that the National Party the New Zealand First Party and the ACT party should all be entitled I would say to at least another two questions each. That would send a very strong message to Ministers that they ought to give answers under Standing Order 372. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This has now become a wider issue. Let me come to the first point. Standing Order 372(1) is very clear. It states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” That means of course that an answer need not be given at all by a Minister if it is not consistent with the public interest. I can remember Ministers actually sitting in their seats and not rising to answer questions. Certainly Ministers are perfectly able to indicate that they are not going to give an answer and it is up to Ministers to judge whether something is in the public interest—not you. That must be so because only the Minister can be aware of the circumstances. 
Secondly I want to deal with the other issue raised by Mr Prebble. Interestingly a number of my colleagues have taken objection to the fact that now that questions are apportioned proportionately Opposition parties are able to load up all their questions into one primary question and spend very few supplementary questions in other questions. That is biting both ways. I explained to my colleagues that that is a perfectly fair tactic on the part of Opposition parties given the proportional allocation of questions. Your judgment had to be about whether the Prime Minister was addressing the question. In every case you ruled that the Prime Minister did address the question. Members are dissatisfied with the nature of the answers given. That of course is a problem from time immemorial for Opposition members facing Ministers. I remember similar feelings myself not more than 3½ years ago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker protects MPs by allowing them to ask questions; he cannot guarantee satisfactory replies. I have not ruled out any question today but members cannot always expect to be satisfied. In my living memory I do not think that any Speaker has allowed more supplementary questions than I have. In fact I extended the number of supplementary questions even when the present Parliament was re-elected. I possess the inherent authority to allow questions to go on and as Dr Cullen rightly pointed out if members want to load up a particular question and forgo others then they are entitled to do that. They do and they have done so today. For example the Leader of the Opposition asked four supplementary questions on question No. 4. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to speak to the point that was raised by Richard Prebble. I think you can see that it is in the spirit of Parliament and within your judgment that when Ministers answer the questions in a way that is unsatisfactory to the House even if it is satisfactory to you there should be room for more questions. I ask that today in the light of the consistent view of the Opposition parties present concerning the Prime Minister’s tactics you concede to Opposition parties that whatever supplementary questions they have used up in getting down to question No. 6 they still retain the quota that they would normally have for the rest of question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I did not say that. I said that I would allow members to use supplementary questions tactically. The National Party has made its own use of that facility today and quite properly so. Dr Cullen referred to that and members have to look at the rest of their questions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Referring to page 20 of the Supplement to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 I point out that we were dealing with the issue of the transfer of questions from one Minister to another and also with your own ruling that relates to the Prime Minister’s responsibility in these matters. I point out that question No. 4 was set down to the Prime Minister but in essence the answer said that the question should have been asked of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. If that is the case then perhaps the question should reasonably have been transferred previously. 
But more important your own ruling in Supplement to 
 Speakers’ Rulings 
 20/5 states: “The Prime Minister is answerable for any statements made as Prime Minister.” That is an unequivocal statement from you as Speaker. When you get today’s  
Hansard 
 I ask that in the quiet moments you might get in your office you consider whether the Prime Minister has reasonably allowed herself to be answerable for the statement she has made and if she did not want to answer question No. 4 whether it might have been appropriate for her to send it off to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Clearly she has offered an apology but has no idea what it was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In one aspect of the supplementary question the Prime Minister referred to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade but in the other part of the question she did not. However I will look at today’s text. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you look at the text I wonder whether you could draw your attention to this pretty important matter. On this side of the House we would like to know whether there is a text of her apology in any recorded form. After almost 55 minutes I think the country is entitled to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating matter. 
Building Industry Authority—Disestablishment 
7.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Why is the Building Industry Authority to be disestablished when the spokesman of the Construction Industry Council and Contractors Federation has said that there has been “virtually no consultation” on an issue of such importance to the industry? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Although there has not been specific consultation with the Construction Industry Council shifting the functions of the Building Industry Authority from a Crown entity to a Government department was foreshadowed to the building industry task force of which the Construction Industry Council spokesperson is a member. A departmental structure as opposed to a Crown entity will strengthen the accountability of the regulator to the Minister to Parliament and to the people of New Zealand. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: In the light of the comments made by lawyer Paul Grimshaw who said: “The Government’s move shows that the Building Industry Authority wasn’t doing its job.’’ does the Minister consider that the Government’s actions today may be an admission of liability to the 800 claimants who have included the Building Industry Authority as one of the defendants in their claims to the weathertightness tribunal? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What matters were taken into account in deciding to transfer the functions of the Building Industry Authority? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was decided that the functions of the Building Industry Authority would be more appropriately undertaken by a Government department because of public expectations of direct political oversight; the need for regular and ongoing contact with the responsible Minister; the exercise of significant regulatory powers; appropriate parliamentary accountability; and the need for flexibility in policy and objectives. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Is the dismantling of the Building Industry Authority yet another example of the Minister wishing to blame others for her failings and for those of her colleagues; if not why has the Minister ignored the recommendations of the select committee inquiry into leaky buildings—or should I take it that the Minister has not read that report? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The Minister can answer two of them. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The answer to the first two questions is no. The conclusions of the select committee report are yet to be reported back on as part of the review of the Building Act. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister agree that the Building Industry Authority’s credibility was irreparably damaged as a result of the weathertightness debacle and is that not a large part of the reason for its restructuring? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I do not accept that. However I believe that the weathertightness issue has led to the general public calling for accountability that simply does not exist between a Minister and a Crown entity. 
Australian Defence Subcommittee—Meeting with Minister of Defence 
8.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What was discussed at this morning’s meeting between himself and the Australian Senate and House of Representatives’ Defence Subcommittee? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 We discussed a number of matters. I was very appreciative of the fact that the chair of the defence subcommittee the Hon Bruce Scott began by referring to the significant contribution that New Zealand has made in the region and beyond in deployments such as Operation Enduring Freedom East Timor and Bougainville. He also commented on how much the Australian service chiefs valued working with the New Zealand Defence Force. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of the latter part of that answer did the Minister discuss with the delegation the possibility of any form of integration of New Zealand and Australian defence forces; if so in what form; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No we had no such discussion because as the member knows New Zealand is a sovereign nation and has its own Defence Force. But we certainly did discuss in some detail the discussions I have had with successive Australian Ministers of Defence about closer cooperation. In particular I discussed the work we have under way to achieve that with Senator Robert Hill. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Was any particular acquisition project discussed at this morning’s meeting? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes we talked in particular about Project Protector and the usefulness of the multi-role vessel to both New Zealand and indeed Australia in our region and elsewhere. In that regard I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Project Protector request-for-proposals document will be formally issued to the six short-listed companies in May and is expected to close in September of this year. 
Simon Power 
: Did the Minister offer any apology to visiting members of the Australian defence subcommittee as a result of comments made by the Prime Minister which implied that Australia was involved in the war in Iraq in return for a trade deal—comments that the  
Australian  
newspaper described as “odious” and “plain wrong”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Certainly not because as the member well knows the comments he refers to were made specifically about the very very vague comments that came across from members of the Opposition and had no reference to anyone outside New Zealand. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can I take the Minister back to his answer to my earlier supplementary question and ask him whether he was saying that he is ruling out any form of integration between Australian and New Zealand defence forces? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am very specifically saying that no such discussion took place there nor has it taken place in ministerial meetings prior to today’s meeting. 
Kupe Gas Field—Genesis Power Ltd 
9.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Has he had any discussion with the Minister for State Owned Enterprises about renegotiating the statement of corporate intent to encourage Genesis Power Limited to develop the Kupe gas field? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister see anything wrong in Genesis Power Ltd mothballing its proposed 400-megawatt generating plant at Huntly because it cannot get a long-term gas supply contract when Genesis Power is a 70 percent owner of the undeveloped Kupe gas field? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is apparently not aware that Genesis needs no encouragement. It has set out to get itself a field operator. It is saying it will bring the gas on in 2006 or 2007— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well it’s not. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member contradicts me. I am telling the member the truth of the matter. The Crown is quitting its 11 percent shareholding which was announced by my colleague the Associate Minister of Energy last week. Why was the member not keeping up with that? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Government might consider giving the Clerk’s Office some advice. Quite clearly this question should have been set down to Dr Cullen—the real Minister of Energy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is trying my patience. He knows that is not a point of order. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What advice does the Minister have on the effect that the development of the Kupe field would be likely to have on gas prices? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I advise the member that developing the Kupe field would raise the price of gas but that that would not necessarily mean higher prices for gas users. Furthermore I am advised that those higher prices which nobody would be paying would encourage more gas exploration. However I am considering that advice with extreme caution because it is contained in a press statement from the Opposition spokesperson on energy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Unlike the Government I seek leave to table the full text of the statement the Minister refers to and then he will be a lot better off. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave to table the full text. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Government committed to the view that Kupe gas should be downgraded and used to generate electricity when sale on the open market might better optimise economic efficiency and add value to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: All other things being equal there is no doubt that using gas directly especially for issues such as hot water heating and space heating is a more efficient use of a resource—which is why some of it is used that way and some of it is used to generate electricity. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister discussed with Genesis why it is currently or has been recently running its Huntly power station at only 40 percent of capacity at night and 80 percent of capacity during the day—rather than flat out—to save water for a dry winter? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Discussions on that matter and many others are continuous in the lead-up to this winter. The most recent meeting was yesterday and I understand that Genesis is likely to significantly increase its throughput through the Huntly plant which will be starting soon. 
Immigration Minister—Prime Minister's Confidence 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Immigration; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is the case why last week in this House was she claiming that the Fernridge Institute was not New Zealand Qualifications Authority – approved when it is; or 2 weeks before that disclaiming any knowledge of the Columbus Academy when everybody else in the department knew of it; or disclaiming knowledge of Ukrainian farm workers who she claimed had not been approved by the Immigration Service for any such scheme when she later admitted they were; or saying she had no knowledge of how many immigrants came to New Zealand last year; and that she did not know how many of the 2045000 visitors who arrived in the year ended December 2002 have actually left or—as if that is not bad enough—that she did not know how many foreign fee-paying students— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have about seven more cases to go. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member has not. The member has had four questions already and that is it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In respect of Fernridge I understand or am advised by the Minister that the New Zealand Immigration Service will be meeting that company tomorrow to establish the facts and that the investigation the Minister talked about in the House last week is continuing. If the member has further questions in that regard he should obviously direct them to the Minister of Immigration. 
Pansy Wong 
: Why does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister who has introduced retrospective immigration rule changes that have a huge and wholly unfair impact on the lives of thousands of potential citizens of our country and that are being challenged in the court as being damaging to New Zealand’s reputation as a fair-minded humane and responsible country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would observe that those very rules were opposed by most of the National Party caucus—except for Ms Wong and Dr Brash I assume. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why should I go to the Minister of Immigration on a question as to whether the Prime Minister has confidence in her and will the Prime Minister address the issue again: why would she have confidence for example in someone who goes on the  
Assignment 
 programme and in a very insightful and humiliating experience says she has no knowledge of fraud or forgery yet countless examples were given to her that very night on that programme; and therefore how can the Prime Minister have confidence in that sort of Minister or is that par for the course now with this Labour administration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have full confidence in the Minister’s ability to handle very difficult and complex issues in immigration. 
Pansy Wong 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seldom take a point of order but my supplementary question is one I am seeking an answer to. I am not too sure how the Prime Minister enlightened the House by saying that only Dr Don Brash and myself from National are supporting that particular rule change. I cannot interpret that as addressing my supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member should have raised the point of order immediately. There have been supplementary questions since then. 
Organics Sector—Development 
11.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What is the Government doing to facilitate the development of the organics sector? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 A 20-year strategy plan for the organics sector funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Industry New Zealand has been finalised and accepted by key sector organisations. It is expected that the strategy along with a new organics standard will be launched in June. These are important steps towards the organics industry being able to reach its potential. 
David Parker 
: What is that potential? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Currently the organics industry earns about $70 million a year from exports. The goal of the strategy plan is to reach $1 billion a year by 2013. 
Hon David Carter 
: As 13 percent of New Zealand’s organic exports currently go to the United States is the Minister confident we can further increase our organic exports to that valuable market and does he see the Prime Minister’s recent comments as assisting in that process? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I have every confidence that the organics sector will expend all efforts in achieving its goals and I see no obstacle to the United States market playing a full share in that. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Will the Government be providing funding to support the establishment phase of the organics sector board so as to ensure its viability and to help it implement the organics strategy; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government has offered the organics sector a hand up not a handout. The first resort of the sector like other parts of the agricultural industry that want to spend money in a collective way is to apply for a commodity levy under the Commodity Levies Act. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: How can the Government claim to facilitate the development of the organics sector when the Government is actively undermining the sector with the lifting of the moratorium on genetically modified organisms? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government’s position on genetic modification is clear and well reasoned. We are working through the issues in a cautious and scientific way. It is not impossible for organic and genetically modified agriculture to coexist. 
Gaming Machines—Government 
12.  
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Will the Government take responsibility for the distribution of pokie funds; if so what form will this responsibility take? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Yes in the form set out in the papers that the member already has. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister aware of any discussions between the Greens and members of the Minister’s office pertaining to an increase in gaming tax and/or further controls over the distribution of pokie funds in return for the Greens’ support for the Responsible Gambling Bill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As the member is aware the Government has already taken responsibility for the distribution of pokie funds. The Responsible Gambling Bill introduces measures to enhance the integrity and accountability of gaming-machine societies that make grants to the community. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We raise this issue again that although it is true that the Minister in his answer mentioned the Responsible Gambling Bill and therefore one could say he addressed the issue he did not actually answer the question at all—which was whether there had been any communication between his office and the Green Party. That was the specific question and we would like an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I think the Minister should just comment on that part of the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member cares to put the question down I am sure the Minister responsible will be happy to answer it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The Minister must know the answer to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not the responsible Minister. He is answering on behalf of another Minister and that is the answer he has given. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have an incredulity problem. We read in the media and we hear statements from the Green Party that the Greens are talking to the Government yet the Minister who has been given the job of replying to the question appears to be telling us that he has no knowledge of whether the Government is talking to the Greens. The Leader of the House is sitting just two seats away from him. I am sure that the Leader of the House knows and I am sure he could answer the question by saying: “Yes we are talking to the Greens.” or “No we are not.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would like to reiterate the answer I gave. I do not know whether such a discussion has taken place. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps I should advise the House that Mr Dunne has interjected telling me that the answer is that he had better not be. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point no matter how much out of order it is. 
Dianne Yates 
: Does the Responsible Gambling Bill propose a change to the present system which allows societies to distribute gaming-machine profits? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No and it never has. The bill as introduced and as reported back preserves the right of societies to distribute gaming-machine profits to the community. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Minister support a publicly accountable distribution system rather than the current private system given comments by Judith Collins when she was chairwoman of the Casino Control Authority that “massive fraud flourished through a network of sham sports and social clubs many controlled by publicans and their mates”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I had not seen the comment made by Ms Collins. I am sure that it will be widely distributed to sports clubs from now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Stephen Franks for a supplementary question—no I am sorry; ACT has used its allocation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This does raise the point that I raised with you earlier. If you are going to refuse to allow extra questions then in effect the Chair is protecting Ministers. The Chair is saying to a Minister—like the Prime Minister when asked a straightforward question which under Speakers’ rulings there is an obligation to reply to if one can—that all he or she has to do is refuse to answer and an Opposition party when seeking clarification which is what you have told us to do then uses up its allocation of questions. This is a supplementary question we had intended to ask. Mr Stephen Franks is a back-bencher whom you said you were going to protect. He wants to ask a supplementary question. I believe that you should allow him to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allocated the number of questions to be asked. The member can always seek leave to ask a supplementary question if he wishes. He can put the leave to the House. Does the member want to seek leave? I have already made a ruling. 
Stephen Franks 
: I will seek leave but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave to ask a supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether I heard you answer the direct question. Having regard to Standing Order 373 is Speaker’s ruling 128/4 now completely obviated. It states: “If the Speaker feels that a Minister is trifling with the House the Chair can permit a further question or questions to be asked.” Will it work with the system that now operates? That was intended to be a discipline to ensure that there was a mechanism for the House to sanction a Minister who trifled with the Chair. If further questions to be asked come off a quota that ruling no longer has any effect. That ruling must have meant that they would have been additional questions; otherwise the ruling would have no power as a sanction against a Minister trifling with the Chair. Therefore I ask you to consider that question before ruling finally on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to. If a Minister does trifle with the Chair then of course I am going to uphold the Speaker’s ruling and the Standing Orders. I adjudged that the Prime Minister addressed the question and supplementary questions flowed as a result. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Leaving aside my earlier interjection which incidentally I am happy to confirm can the Minister assure the House that there are no plans afoot to increase the rate of gaming duty to cover the cost of any shortfall in either Lottery Grants Board proceeds or proceeds for distribution from poker machines? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No such decision has been taken by the Government. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Iraq—Apology to United States 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the Prime’s Minister’s decision to ask the New Zealand Embassy in Washington to apologise for some of her remarks. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not consider the matter of sufficient import to warrant the setting aside of the House’s time this afternoon for an urgent debate. The application is declined. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I accept your ruling that in your view this is not a matter of sufficient importance for the immediate attention of the House but I do seek leave for the House to debate it because of its importance to the country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is certainly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Maori Television Service Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Television Service Bill be now read a second time 
. The idea of a Maori television service has been around for some time. A Maori television service was given impetus as a result of the 1993 Privy Council decision in the broadcasting assets case. The Privy Council noted amongst other things that the Government had made a commitment by Cabinet agreement in 1991 to set aside funding for the purpose of promoting Maori language and culture in broadcasting part or all of which could be used to assist in the development of special-purpose television. This bill establishes the Maori Television Service. The bill also confirms the Maori Television Electoral College known as Te Putahi Paoho. The bill confirms the partnership approach that the Government and Maori have negotiated in relation to the governance accountability and general operation of the Maori Television Service. 
The principal function of the Maori Television Service is to promote Maori language and culture through the provision of a high-quality cost-effective Maori television service in both Maori and English that informs educates and entertains and in doing so enriches New Zealand society culture and heritage. The channel will assist in highlighting and promoting Maori success and will encourage the further achievement of Maori in education and in areas of social and economic development. The new channel will screen te reo Maori and Maori programmes in prime time. For the first time we will start to see Maori-orientated programmes at times when Maori and New Zealand audiences usually watch television. 
The Maori Television Service is a statutory corporation. It involves Maori and the Crown in the governance and accountability of the service. Similar accountability provisions to those in the Public Finance Act will apply. Those include the requirement for a statement of intent for an output agreement at the beginning of the financial year and for an annual report at the end of each financial year. The service will have a seven-member board with four directors appointed by the Maori Television Electoral College and three by the responsible Ministers. That arrangement is unique and reflects the interest that both the Crown and Maori have in the service. 
I would like to acknowledge the work of the Maori Affairs Committee. The select committee has proposed a number of changes to the bill including providing a new Maori translation of the preamble removing the Kaitiaki Trust from the bill requiring the service to foster where appropriate its broadcasting capacity through appropriate training and education and aligning the provisions relating to the independence of the service with a similar provision in the recently passed Television New Zealand Act. The select committee has also proposed the inclusion of a clause protecting the name “Maori Television Service” and a provision requiring that any failures by the directors to report conflicts of interest are specified in the service’s annual report as well as a tightened and clearer disputes resolution process. 
The select committee has advised that the service’s functions as set out in the bill generally provide an appropriate level of guidance to the service while still providing an opportunity for the board to draw its own interpretations. Members will also observe that the select committee has recommended that a number of the operational and administrative clauses be moved from the main body of the bill to the schedules. That will assist those who will be required to operate under the legislation. 
I would like to elaborate on a number of the select committee’s recommendations starting with the 5-year review. The Government and Te Putahi Paoho agreed during the course of negotiations on the Maori Television Service model that the Government would retain a short-term involvement in governance and implementation and an ongoing involvement in funding the service which could necessitate a review of the legislation at some point in the future. The select committee has proposed that that intention be taken on board by proposing that this legislation be reviewed after 5 years from the date it comes into force. The review would cover the operation and effectiveness of the legislation in accordance with terms of reference set by the responsible Ministers. The responsible Ministers will be required to consult Te Putahi Paoho on the terms of reference prior the commencement of the review. 
The select committee proposes that the review report be presented to the House of Representatives within 6 years of the commencement date of the legislation. That time frame will allow the service and the broadcasting industry as a whole sufficient time to get on with the establishment and bedding down of the service. I commend that proposal to the House as a practical means of being able to evaluate and assess performance and to identify changes that will improve the operational effectiveness of the legislation and the Maori Television Service. 
The select committee has also proposed aligning clause 10 “Independence of Service” with a similar provision contained in section 28 of the Television New Zealand Act. That more specifically excludes potential directions to the service by the responsible Ministers Te Putahi Paoho and directors acting without the authority of the board. 
The select committee proposes there be greater clarity of the disputes resolutions process for instances where disagreements occur. The proposed changes set out a more deliberate procedure for the resolution of disputes with mediation when both parties are unable to reach agreement. 
The Maori Affairs Committee also proposed the removal of the Kaitiaki Trust from the bill. The sole purpose of the Kaitiaki Trust was to receive the ultra-high frequency management right from the Crown and to transfer it to the Maori Television Service. The select committee identified the Kaitiaki Trust as being largely symbolic. The select committee’s arguments are well made. It is largely for the reasons it has given that I propose at the appropriate time to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that will provide for the safeguarding of the ultra-high frequency right by Te Putahi Paoho. The Supplementary Order Paper will also propose a number of minor technical amendments to the bill. 
This bill provides for the establishment of the Maori Television Service. It may therefore be appropriate for me to briefly update the House on recent developments associated with the establishment of the service. The establishment board is at full strength with seven members. The responsible Ministers and Te Putahi Paoho recently announced the appointment of Mr Wayne Walden as the chair and Ms Ani Waaka as the deputy chair of the Maori Television Service Establishment Board. The service has recently appointed a provisional chief executive and is commencing the recruitment process for other key staff. It has moved into its studio and office premises in Newmarket Auckland. 
The Maori Television Service has moved significantly towards the signing of contracts for the provision of the ultra-high frequency transmission service and is in negotiations over a digital satellite platform. It has completed the identification of its studio and broadcasting equipment needs and is on the verge of signing contracts with preferred providers. There are hours of programming that have either been commissioned or are in the process of being commissioned. Arrangements have also been made with Television New Zealand to access archival material and the service has advised me that Television New Zealand is being very helpful in lending support to the establishment of the channel. 
The passage of this bill and the introduction of Maori television is long awaited by Maori in this country and by all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 As a member of Parliament and a Maori member of Parliament I am embarrassed to be associated with a bill that sets up a Maori Television Service that far from being the triumph for Maori that it should be has so far been an utter disaster and an utter debacle—and on current form is likely to remain so. That is a huge shame; it is hugely disappointing. This Government and particularly this Minister must take full responsibility for the debacle that has ensued over the last 3 years. The establishment of the Maori Television Service was a flagship policy of this Government when it came into power in 1999. The Government is now into its second term and we are still inching our way towards that service and there is no guarantee whatsoever that the proposals set out in this bill will achieve the objectives that have been set. 
That situation is also disappointing given that so much of the work as the Minister has pointed out had its background its genesis in a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal in the early 1990s a Privy Council ruling in 1993 and a Government intention which was set out at that point to establish a service. The previous National Government did a lot of the preparatory work in the 1990s. Also while there were some mistakes we learnt from them. We should have all learnt from those mistakes but no. What has happened? In the 21st century after all the work that was done in the 1990s the mistakes go on and on. As I have said there is no guarantee that this bill will minimise mistakes in the future. This Minister is responsible for the Maori Television Service and he must make sure that what goes on from now on actually has the potential to succeed. 
The other pity about this situation is that many New Zealanders actually want this service to work as well. I am pleased to hear of the appointment of Wayne Walden. I know him reasonably well; in fact I have worked with him. The fact that he has agreed to be the chair says something about the kind of grunt and expertise he is willing to bring to the service and it says something about the kind of people who know him and respect his professionalism in the business world. They also probably want this service to succeed having seen his appointment as chair of the board. As I say many New Zealanders want this service to work. They want to know more about the Maori world. But what have they learnt in the 3 years since this Minister has had responsibility for the Maori Television Service? They have learnt that if there is a mistake—a big disaster a debacle or whatever—the Government will overlook it and will not call for full accountability. In fact nobody will take any responsibility for it whatsoever. 
We saw that in the debacle over the John Davy appointment. In the end who was shafted badly there? It was Millennium People. But did anybody in this House take responsibility for that debacle? No—and ultimately when we are spending taxpayers’ money someone in this House has the responsibility for that expenditure. This Minister did not take that responsibility—a Minister who says he is here to develop and grow Maori was willing to see this Government the Prime Minister and his colleagues shaft Millennium People just like that as if it was totally to blame for that appointment. We know that it was not. 
I come to the examination of this bill by the Maori Affairs Committee. Although some reasonable changes were recommended the problem is that a number of matters remain outstanding. They were in some respects cursorily addressed by the Government members of the committee. They are matters like the structure the functions the funding the control and reporting and something that I am pretty committed to: issues of ownership and the treaty. I ask whether the Maori Television Service is a discharge of the Crown’s treaty obligations or whether there is another rationale for it. That question was asked before the select committee particularly by the Maori Television Service and others. It was not answered though the structure and accountability mechanisms of this bill suggest that there is another rationale for the service. 
When the Government speaks of a social obligation one starts to think that this service is a muddle like most other things that this Government does. Yes it is being established because of the treaty but hello the dollars are to be allocated in the same way that the dollars for other projects are and there are no clear ultimate ownership provisions in this bill. So when we come to the Committee stage I will be asking the Minister to answer things like that because the submissions to the select committee from the Maori Television Service in particular were reasonable. Most of its submissions were ignored but that does not make the issues go away. Since they have not been addressed now those things will come back to haunt the Government. 
The issue about whether this service is being established in satisfaction of a treaty obligation is important for future Governments because the mishmash of this legislation is such that we do not know what the rationale for the service is. References to the treaty are littered throughout the bill—and particularly when we look at the background and the parts of the bill that state that it makes provision for cooperation between Maori and the Crown to preserve protect and promote te reo Maori—but with little effect. I do not know where in any of the cases where judgments were made in the early 1990s the obligations of Maori were referred to. But because it is a good thing for the Crown to look as though it is starting to discharge treaty obligations it says it is doing that on the one hand while on the other hand it is making others responsible for the service as well. 
So there is mishmash here. Who are the owners of this entity? There is uncertainty regarding the beneficial ownership of the Maori Television Service. What is the nature of the relationship between and what are the status rights powers and obligations of the electoral college and the responsible Ministers? Those are important questions. As I have asked already what about the funding? Are these Crown dollars or are they treaty dollars? I say to the Minister that there is a clear distinction in that regard and that Maori will come back to a future Government and say the Government did not actually discharge its responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. That becomes a real concern for us in the National Party because we envisage that one day we will be sitting on the Government benches. There is no way that we will want Maori to come back to us and say they are going to the courts again because this service was not provided in satisfaction of a treaty obligation. The Minister cannot get away with the mishmash of provisions that this bill is all about. 
Neither can the Minister get away with pretending that the accountability mechanisms in this bill will work when the conduct of the Government so far has been to sheet home to other people all the accountability for the things that have gone wrong. The Minister in charge of this bill is the Minister in charge of the expenditure of this money and on current form this Minister has failed miserably. That does not augur well for the setting up of the Maori Television Service. 
In conclusion I say the now chief executive officer of the Maori Television Service Derek Fox came to the select committee on 7 November to give us a bit of a report back. The big concern at that time was the transmission platform. We know that the Government did not go with the CanWest TV4 option which those who know about it said would have got this service out to a bigger percentage of Maori homes. That is the stupidity of it as well—this is a Maori television service and there are homes that it will not beam into. Derek Fox said the service had to go with what it had. He said that the decision that was made on the transmission platform was not the best option for the service but the service had to go with it. I hope this Minister makes sure the service is a success. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This bill arises from an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi for cooperation between the Crown and Maori to preserve protect and promote te reo Maori or more particularly te reo Maori me nga tikanga Maori. So far so good. We learnt from the Privy Council decision that te reo was an endangered species that the level of te reo usage in New Zealand had dramatically decreased and that the Crown needed to take steps to protect it in compliance with its obligations under the treaty. To that end it is encouraging to see some members of this House taking a lead and participating in te reo courses so that they can improve their understanding of the language. 
I recently attended the opening of a school block. I was one of the guests sitting at the front of the crowd when the national anthem was played. The children sang the first verse in te reo Maori and the subsequent verse in English as is quite common these days. The trouble was that we were not given a song sheet to sing from. So we stood there needing to sing the first verse in Maori but without a song sheet to help. Fortunately because I had been attending te reo classes I coped fairly well but it made me realise that perhaps all members of the House and all leaders in New Zealand need to be faced with the situation where they are put in front of people and encouraged to demonstrate their knowledge or otherwise of te reo. Maybe if we did that we would find more leadership in New Zealanders as a whole learning te reo and advancing the language in that way. 
I would be very happy to see New Zealand becoming more and more bilingual. I certainly personally encourage that trend. But is this a good way of doing it? Is this a good way of promoting te reo? We know already that the initial establishment funding has been increased from $6 million to nearly $13 million. We know that $30 million has been allocated to Te Mangai Paho for programme funding the bulk of which is to go to Maori television and that that is to rise to $40 million per annum within 2 years. How much more will be ploughed into Maori television programming we are yet to see but there is certainly a real danger I think that we will see more and more money going into Maori television for te reo language skills. We have to raise the question therefore of whether the money is well spent. 
There is a suspicion already among a lot of New Zealanders that State-funded Maori enterprises have a propensity to fail. We cannot afford a situation where Maori television is simply another on the list of failures. We know that that is not always the case that in Ngai Tahu for example we see some very very positive Maori involvement and enterprise and that is to be strongly commended. What we need to avoid as we bring together Maori and non-Maori and move forward in this nation is enterprises that are poorly set up and then find themselves failing so that there is suspicion on future organisations and therefore New Zealanders become even more weary of State-funded Maori enterprises. It is my fear and the fear of United Future that this proposal and the Maori television scheme that is being set up comes within the category of being in huge danger of failing and simply adding to that situation. 
Already we have found that there are scandals within the television service and it has not even got off the ground. I do not need to go back over the ground of the scandals that we have seen happening but already there is a suspicion a black mark against the Maori Television Service. People are a little suspicious as to whether it will actually turn its act round and be a positive development and achieve both for Maori and for New Zealand as a whole. If it is a lemon if it is ineffective if it is simply a black hole into which money is poured with no real benefit to Maori or to New Zealand in general then rather than help the situation it will further hinder Maori - non-Maori relationships. 
There is the danger of that failure through three things. Firstly there was a lack of vision on the part of the Government. Where is Labour’s 10 year plan for te reo? Where is its assessment of the need for development of te reo and the alternatives that are available to it? We do not see that. There is no vision. There is confusion among Government members in terms of the direction they will go. Secondly where is the research as to the likely viewer audience for this Maori television station? If we are going to have a dedicated television channel who will watch it? Is anybody going to watch it? 
The House will be aware of the exchange which was publicised that I had with Derek Fox who is now the chief executive officer of Maori television during the Maori Affairs Committee discussion on Maori television in October last year. I asked him what research had been done to establish the likely audience demand from the Maori television channel. He said that everybody he had talked to thought it was a good idea. I asked him whether that meant that no outside research had been done about the likely potential viewership. His reply was that I myself had said I was “Ngati Pakeha” and that I did not understand Maori. He attacked me rather than answering the question. I spoke to him afterwards and asked him whether any research had been done. He said he would send it to me. I said that unless United Future saw it we would not support the bill. We have still not seen any research whatsoever to demonstrate that anybody will watch that television channel. 
What did my understanding of the situation have to do with the fact that he said I did not understand Maori? Was it that Maori like to act spontaneously and do things without planning? Was it that Maori will take money given to them especially other people’s money and not expect to be accountable for it? Was it that Mr Fox is building an empire for himself and he does not like people standing in his way as he creates it? I do not know but I would be concerned if any of those things were proved to be true. I notice that there was even an argument from the service that Mr Fox heads to suggest that they should not be accountable. 
The select committee report states: “In its submission the Service argues that accountability requirements fetter the ability of its board to meets its obligations (set out in clause 8). It says a preferable structure would be to establish the Service under the Companies Act 1993 which it argues would remove many of the accountability requirements.” I am pleased to say that the select committee which was made up of a majority of Maori rejected that suggestion. That gives me hope that his view is not a view that most Maori hold that there should be a lack of planning and enterprise and a lack of accountability. The select committee states further: “The Service will be largely funded by the Government for the foreseeable future. The responsible Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for that funding. Accountability requirements are therefore necessary.” I certainly concur with that. But there has to be a lot of concern that when the service itself questions whether there should be accountability for funding we will not get the accountability we need. 
I am also concerned about Labour’s contradictory stance in terms of the furtherance of Maori - non-Maori relationships. We see on the one hand suggestions that there should be unity—the reconciliation and the treaty settlements process are examples of that. On the other hand there is the segregation of Maori from non-Maori a division within New Zealand—separate Maori voting on local authorities is an example of that. 
Is this a unifying or dividing bill? Will this unify New Zealand or will it separate Maori into a segment? I think from the tone of the bill that it is a divisive bill that puts Maori to one side and separates them. United Future will not support the bill for that reason. We see that it is creating a separate television channel that Maori will watch and that New Zealanders will not be encouraged to watch it and develop their own te reo. I would like to see all New Zealanders have access through regional television Maori programmes on regional television and even national television to encourage them to use te reo. That would be a far more healthy way of approaching and furthering the interests of te reo than creating a separate structure. So because of inadequate planning the danger of wasted resources a black hole the high probability of failure due to inadequate research and monitoring and because it is divisive United Future will not support this bill. 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I had not intended to take a call in this debate. I simply sat here this afternoon to support my colleague the Hon Minister of Maori Affairs during the second reading of the bill. But then I listened to one of the previous speakers from the National Party the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and I thought to myself that people obviously have very short memories or they just do not want the Maori Television Service to go to air. 
I remind that member that there used to be a television service called Aotearoa Television. It went through some difficult times and then disappeared off the face of the earth. I say that a lot of the responsibility for that has to go to the previous regime the previous Government. [ 
Interruption 
] Not only did National underfund this television service it refused to give it the support that it required. I am surprised to hear the interjections from the Hon Brian Donnelly who should be standing in this debate to support what I am saying. Members from his party bit the dust because the commitment and the support were not there. I am very very surprised to hear his interjections at this point in time. 
I congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs on the commitment he has put into this entire process. It has been difficult. It has been marred by a number of highly contentious matters. The Maori Television Board did its best to conduct a transparent process when it came to appointing a chief executive officer—so much so that it sought outside advice. But that advice was not sound and as a result a mistake was made but the appropriate actions were taken thereafter. So some people have very short memories. Millennium People had to accept the blame for the mistake but that is business. When a firm gives bad advice it suffers the consequences. In this case that is exactly what happened. But the board lifted itself up and got on with the business. Here we are today in this House debating a very very important bill. 
If the National Party spokeswoman on obviously everything cannot handle this television service going to air then the problem is hers or the problem is theirs. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who hired Millennium? 
MITA RIRINUI 
: There goes that member from up north again—the Hon Brian Donnelly—interjecting with something that his previous colleagues were very very supportive of. Maybe he should read the  
Hansard 
 not me. 
I stand to take a very very brief call to support this bill to support the Minister of Maori Affairs and to congratulate the Maori Affairs Committee on bringing the legislation to the House for debate. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has questioned the funding and programming of Maori television especially when the items that affect Maori—like education housing health and employment—should be the priority. Those are the matters that concern New Zealand First. We hear day in and day out about the statistics to do with Maori because those are the things that affected Maori in the past and affect Maori today. In the case of the Maori television channel is the transmission available in the north of the North Island likewise on the East Coast and north of Gisborne including Gisborne? What is the cost to consumers? Are they in a financial position to have that transmission? If they are unemployed how would that be financed? What is the housing situation? That sector of the community is struggling. With regard to education what is happening with the truancy situation and the skill base of Maori? What about employment and the social atmosphere out there including law and order? What will be the quality of the programmes that Maori television will utilise in order to encourage education across the board? Will this programme—if and when it gets started—and the coverage it will receive play a large part in the direction that Maori take in retaining te reo me nga tikanga or will it be strictly entertainment? 
New Zealand First believes that the money that will be spent and will continue to be spent would be put to better use by improving the environment of positive education outcomes improving housing and employment and vastly improving health. Meeting those needs should be the priority. Until those matters are seen to how will a sector of the New Zealand community survive to enjoy those treasures which we hold dear to us within the bounds of a free society? The language will truly flourish when it is stress-free. The social structure of this country has changed. New Zealand First is not against promotion of the language and tikanga but let us prioritise settle the immediate needs first then work towards those goals in an amicable manner that will benefit all. We are well aware of the Crown’s responsibility as far as the treaty goes but let us also be aware of the Government’s responsibility to the immediate needs of the people—that is to govern wisely. 
New Zealand First opposes the Maori Television Bill because of the glaring needs of this sector of the community whose statistics provide proof of where the concentration of efforts should be placed. At a meeting of the Maori Affairs Committee I asked Mr Derek Fox whether education would be included in that television programming and the answer was a straight no. I was sad to hear that. I asked why and he said that it is strictly to entertain. He said that if one needed education there is an organisation called the Ministry of Education. My question to him after that asked whether he would utilise the resources of the Ministry of Education if they were available to promote education. He answered no. What is the glaring need of Maori today? It is education. Education will contribute to Maori looking after themselves becoming independent and being independent of the State. We need to realise that when Maori have the skill base they will be able to take care of their affairs in health employment and housing and they will be able to contribute to our economy whether locally or internationally. 
I always remember the saying of Sir Apirana Ngata. He said: “Hold onto those things that are dear to you as far as our language and our tikanga is concerned as a top knot on your head but also take the weapon of the Pakeha which is education.” What do we have today? Our people who were once a proud people are putting their hands out rather than putting them up. Those are the issues that we need to face today. The millions that the Government is going to put into television will not solve the challenges and problems that our society has today. They will not and I can guarantee that in 5 to 6 years’ time—or whenever there is a review of Maori television—what will still be there will be those statistics that are always being brought up in this House. So what is the answer? Is the answer Maori television? If we ask Tongan Samoan or Chinese people about their language and why they have retained it they will say that they have retained it because they are taught it in their homes. They watch television but they have retained their language because they are taught it in their homes. 
I attended an education conference in Napier when I was a lecturer at the polytech. A guest speaker talked about how successful kohanga reo was. During the break I asked him how many of those young people still retained the language when they went to State schools or any other school. The answer was : “Very few.” I asked why and I was told that it was because the parents do not speak Maori. When children go home to their families the language spoken is English. What has been done since then? Parents have been encouraged to learn the language so that they can speak with their children at home. The parents were embarrassed because they did not understand what their children were talking about. Those things are right; they have been recorded. 
I say to the Minister that we oppose this bill. We are looking at the common sense of it and at where our priorities should lie. Once those priorities are sorted out I will support him 100 percent on having Maori television. But members should not forget what is happening out there. I was questioned yesterday in Morrinsville and I know that this issue is causing division amongst our people and amongst the citizens of New Zealand. Do we want that also? That is all I have to say. New Zealand First opposes the legislation for the very reasons I have given. I am sure that Maori will contribute to our society more positively when all those other things are sorted out. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I congratulate that member on his excellent speech and on his reasons for opposing this legislation. I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this legislation also. There is no reason that taxpayers should be forced to fund a separate Maori television service and one that this Government has set up to fail. We all know that this is just a vote-buying exercise. It is interesting to look back on the election campaign when this television service was promised. In fact one could look back further than that to when Derek Fox stated that he would set up a separate Maori party which this Labour Government knew would challenge it because Mr Fox said that the Labour Government had not done enough for Maori. 
That caused great nervousness in Labour’s ranks so it cobbled together the Maori Television Service as a sop first to Derek Fox to get him on side. Of course the Maori party was abandoned. 
Look at the sad tale that the Maori Television Service has been since then. It was meant to be up and running months ago—it was meant to be going by June last year. Then we got the John Davy debacle and the unseemly scrap in Cabinet between the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Broadcasting over how Maori television would go to air—would it be VHF or UHF? 
We all know that Derek Fox made it quite clear that he preferred the TV3 option whereby the Government would swap a radio FM frequency with TV3 for channel 4. If the Government had done that the Maori Television Service could have gone to air almost immediately. It could have been out there now. Moreover it would not be dependent on the State for handouts. That option would have given the Maori Television Service the opportunity to operate as an independent commercially viable stand-alone television channel that would not be dependent on the State for funding. It would have been a bit like Mai FM is now in Auckland which constantly challenges the top-rating radio broadcasters because it is commercial. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How did it start? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Yes it started with taxpayer funding but with the way the Maori Television Service is now being run it will be dependent on $13 million a year just to operate the service and a predicted $155 million a year by 2005 just to make the programmes. The Minister of Broadcasting did not want that option because he wanted the Maori Television Service to be broadcast through a channel provided by BCL which is now the stand-alone company from Television New Zealand. As someone else pointed out those who want to receive Maori television will now have to pay hundreds of dollars to tune into it and if they live in an area where it is difficult to get reception—for example behind a hill—they will have to pay to get extra aerials. 
As I said the Minister is setting up Maori television to fail. The Government is pandering to the Maori vote and more than that I predict that this will provide ammunition for those rednecks out there who want to bash Maori because this television service will hoover-up taxpayers’ money. In the end it is doomed to fail. 
My colleague Rodney Hide has already revealed a huge wastage of taxpayers’ money which has been handed out to make television programmes for Maori television and that has been used on booze-ups for Ministers. As we see more taxpayers’ money wasted I predict there will be a repeat of the Aotearoa Television debacle and that is so unfair because New Zealanders who oppose this will just turn round and say: “Look at Maori. They can’t run business. They are constantly propped up by the taxpayers.” Of course it is in this Government’s interests to keep Maori dependent on Government handouts so that it can get the Maori vote at the next election. I gave a lot of interviews last year to iwi radio stations and they were totally opposed to the way this Government will broadcast Maori television. They knew it was being set up to fail and they dreaded the backlash that will surely result from it. 
Georgina te Heuheu raised a very good point when she mentioned the repeated intrusion of the Treaty of Waitangi into this legislation. I also predict that the Maori Television Service will be strangled by this Government’s passing of the Treaty of Waitangi buck into this legislation especially when this Government cannot even define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and instead just claims that it is a nebulous living breathing document that is alive and well in Margaret Wilson’s office. How on earth is a television broadcaster meant to operate when it is strangled by the intrusion of the Treaty of Waitangi into the legislation that is set up to run it? The only good thing that has come out of this is the appointment of Wayne Walden who will hopefully inject some accountability into this television service. 
It is also interesting to note that this television service has resulted from litigation to the Privy Council—the same Privy Council that this Government will deny New Zealanders the right to appeal to. In its creeping move to republicanism it will remove the right of appeal to the Privy Council which is the same Privy Council that saved so-called precious te reo. I notice members are all very silent on that and looking the other way holding their heads in shame. Where would te reo be without the Privy Council? We have heard much cant about the need for members of this House to have lessons in how to speak Maori and I notice that that arrogance always emanates from the bleeding-heart white apologists. It would be really gratifying if members of this House took some lessons in English for a start before they started to think about being bilingual. 
As I say the ACT party opposes this legislation. It is doomed to fail. If this coalition Government really wanted to do something about education and prosperity for Maori it would give Maori parents some choice and as Bill Gudgeon has so passionately said it would bring up some standards in education. It would do something about the appalling rise in suspensions and stand-downs among Maori students. An alleged 4000 students are truanting and nothing has been done about it. It would reform welfare so that young Maori women would not be leaving school with no qualifications to bring up their babies on welfare. Where is the Minister of Social Services and Employment when a poor woman is crying at 4 o’clock in the morning because the washing machine has overflowed from all the sheets that are dirty and the baby is vomiting and she has no one who will put his or her arms around her and give her a hug while she has a big howl? What is the $13 million and the $155 million doing to raise the standards of education for women like that? 
If the Government wants to do something about education and prosperity for Maori it should not spend all that money on an entertainment channel which is doomed to fail and which is fodder for the rednecks. The Government should do something about giving choice back to Maori parents—and all parents—and power in their children’s education. We oppose this legislation. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I stand with pleasure to take a very brief call. In response to the previous speaker I have to observe that she will have the luxury of thinking about some of those deep imponderables that she confronted us with while she is in Cambridge in the UK for 3 months at the taxpayers’ expense. I tell Ms Coddington that I am not at all jealous I am just a bit befuddled by the double standard that the ACT party continually exhibits. Like other members of the House I note with great irony that the one Maori member of the ACT party seems conspicuously absent from the Chamber for the debate on this bill. I recommend this bill to the House. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are pleased to say that we support the second reading of this bill but we have some concerns that we hope will be dealt with in the Committee stage. We are very happy that the bill has finally come before the House; after spending some 12 months on the Order Paper it is a long time coming. As has been mentioned previously the whole issue concerning te reo as a taonga was first acknowledged by the Waitangi Tribunal in 1986. In 1993 the Privy Council made its decision which was one of very few it did make in support of Maori issues. In that decision the Privy Council again supported the funding of a special television service for the protection of that taonga. In 1996 we had the establishment of Aotearoa Television as a pilot which then ended somewhat messily in 1997. Since that time it has taken 6 years to finally develop legislation and a process for the establishment of a Maori television service that enables the Government to meet its treaty obligations. It is very overdue and we are pleased to see it finally before the House. 
The provision of a high-quality service focused on te reo and tikanga will make a huge contribution to both Maori and non-Maori communities. I am appalled to hear concerns that such a service will be divisive given that those kinds of accusations are certainly not levelled at Television New Zealand which concerns only one language in this country and which is broadcast primarily in that one language. Its commitment to te reo and to tikanga has come about only in recent times but of course that is not considered divisive. Yet when Maori are able to be reflected in one of the most important media opportunities that we currently have that is considered divisive by some people. 
They are wrong. This is not divisive. This is a way to enable all New Zealanders to have their views concerns and issues reflected in a television service that is primarily concerned with New Zealand concerns and views. It will be the only television service we have in this country that is primarily concerned with this country and its people and that is where its real strength lies. It is a clear indication of how in meeting treaty obligations and recognising the importance of te tiriti the Government and others can provide a contribution through that treaty obligation to all people in this country and help and establish community awareness and recognition of different values—values that are reflected in Maori and non-Maori communities. So we are very pleased to see this initiative coming to effect at some stage. 
However we do have some issues with the bill that I need to outline this afternoon. For us—and Sue Kedgley mentioned this in her first reading speech very well—the issue of the independence of the service from political interference is a serious concern. Although the Maori Affairs Committee did make some minor changes to the wording of the bill none the less there are still provisions in the bill that will undermine the political independence of the service; issues such as the level of financial accountability that the service will have to Ministers and to the Government if every time it wants to buy a stapler it has to get permission to do so. We believe that that kind of level of accountability could undermine by political interference. We believe that financial independence is crucial for a member of the fourth estate. 
So we will be putting forward an amendment during the Committee stage that will address that issue and ensure that in no circumstances are Ministers or any individuals whether or not with the permission of the board able to influence the programming the content or the management of the service in that respect. Maori services whether this service or some such body as the Waitangi Tribunal need to be accorded the same respect—the same standing—as any other similar body in our constitution. The protection of the fourth estate its independence in what it reports and the content of its reporting is very important to us so we will be putting forward an amendment during the Committee stage. 
We are also concerned about the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has put forward particularly in relation to clause 28C in terms of the leasing of the UHF right to third parties to ensure that any third party that may use that spectrum does so completely committed to the purpose of the service. We will be putting forward an amendment that makes some minor changes in wording but none the less is a significant step in ensuring that any third party that takes on the spectrum will not only be committed to providing and promoting te reo and tikanga through the television service but that it is also committed to ensuring that it will broadcast primarily in te reo at prime time ensuring that at other times a substantial proportion of its programmes are in te reo ensuring that in the presentation of the service the needs of children and adults who are learning te reo are recognised as far as possible and technically available and also ensuring that practical access to the service will be maintained. 
For us it is not just about the content of the service but also about the delivery of the service that is essential. We look forward to putting forward our amendments at a later stage. 
Finally late last year we raised the concern about the spectrum and the choice of the Government to go with UHF instead of with the TV4 option. That is a very serious concern for us because the success of the service relies very much on its ability to access communities and for communities to see themselves reflected in that service. We are deeply concerned about that. Although it is very difficult for changes to be made to the bill at this late stage we would like to see some kind of commitment from the Government to ensure that at least for example marae are able to access the service and that there is funding provided for them to purchase aerials if they need to in order to ensure a high-quality level of service. 
If we start providing a Maori-focused television service that suffers from really bad reception or interference from other television receptions it will be considered to be bad quality. It will be undermined as being not as good as other television and will not get the support from the communities that it is supposed to support. It will not get the kind of recognition and standing from other non-Maori communities on which it can have a great impact in encouraging the relationships ethnic understanding and relationship development between all peoples in this country. 
So something like funding for marae would be extremely useful as some indication from the Government that it is committed to ensuring that all people get access to the television service. We look forward to discussion during the Committee stage and we are pleased to support the bill at its second reading. Again we would like to reiterate that we consider that the service is essential to this country it will be an excellent way to recognise te reo as being the only official language in this country and not at all divisive but as a way of bringing together communities—an essential issue in the 21st century. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. I believe that it is very good legislation. I congratulate the Hon Parekura Horomia and also members of the Maori caucus and the Maori Affairs Committee on bringing the bill back to the House. This bill is an important bill and the Maori Television Service will be an important part of the cultural flavour of our country. I speak as a younger member for whom te reo Maori and tikanga Maori is not some sort of strange abstract thing. It is something that we have grown up with and something that I think all New Zealanders will enjoy. I do not agree with members who say that this will be divisive between Maori and Pakeha. Within the Pakeha community there are a growing number of people who want to enjoy and understand more of Maori culture and have that intertwined in their life. There is no doubt about that. 
I was very interested to listen to the subscription figures on the radio on Sunday for  
Mana 
 magazine where half of the subscribers to that magazine are Pakeha. This legislation is about New Zealand. It is about two peoples. This is a bicultural bill and I think members will be quite surprised how much support there is in the community for it. I come from a generation that does not need to look at the words of both languages of the anthem of our country. It is something we instinctively know. This legislation is something that members will look on I believe with pride when they cast their votes for it. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 This bill which is being reported back from the Maori Affairs Committee is a huge and lasting monument to the incompetence of the Minister of Maori Affairs and of the Government. As my colleague Georgina te Heuheu has told the House the National Party will be voting against it. I tell the Minister that on the basis of the vast array of political riches that have been forthcoming from the Maori Television Service to date I look forward to many many happy hours in the select committee in parliamentary question time and in dealing with the media at his expense. Because that has been the track record of this bill to date and it will no doubt be the track record of this legislation in the future. 
It is worth reminding the House today that the Minister of Maori Affairs announced the launching of the Maori Television Service on 11 November 2000. He said that during the next year—2001—we would see the Maori Television Service. Well we have seen a few changes a few modifications and a few updates since that time. Indeed the major one would have had us believe that the service would be on air in June of last year. Now we are told that if we are lucky—if I might use that word—we will see something at the end of this year. Whichever way we look at it—whether we look at the funding the governance the appointment of management the programming or the transmission—it is hard to imagine a bigger cock-up than this bill at any level. 
I tell the Minister that I do not think his stocks with the Prime Minister will be looking too flash because I recall something that the Prime Minister said on 18 February 2001. She said: “I saw it was going round in circles and so I raised it at cabinet and what we’ve done is brought a group of officials together to get the clear options up to the cabinet. We just weren’t getting any proper advice to be honest.” That is what the Prime Minister said about the Maori Television Service on 18 February way back in 2001. Over 2 years ago she said: “We want some options—and fast ... I want some decisions. I want to be in a position to make decisions instead of seeing the issue go round in circles at a bureaucratic level.” That is what the Prime Minister said about this legislation and about this service over 2 years ago. 
We now know that the Minister in whose name this bill sits before the House today has piece by piece had most of the decisions taken off him and given to the Minister of Finance. The reason is that the Prime Minister has been losing confidence in the Minister who is in charge of this bill as has this House. 
My colleagues and I in the National Party believe that this has been a very sorry saga and I thank Deborah Coddington for reminding the House today of the genesis of this service. She reminded the House that the starting point for the bill was in the plan of Mr Derek Fox now the chief executive previously the chairman to set up a new Maori political party to challenge the Labour Party in the Maori seats and that he personally—Mr Fox—was going to challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs in his own electorate. Then the Prime Minister who could see the Government’s hold on the Maori seats looking a bit shaky decided to invite Mr Fox to afternoon tea—and a very nice afternoon tea it must have been indeed as Ms Coddington has reminded the House because Mr Fox walked out of that afternoon tea a very happy man. He was told of the wonderful prospects that lay ahead for him as the chairman-to-be of the new Maori Television Service. 
Perceptive members on this side of the House said: “Ah there’s something rotten going on here! This sounds like something that should happen in one of those Third World African countries not something that should happen in New Zealand. It looks like this man has been bought off.” We were told by the Prime Minister: “Oh no no! Mr Fox is still going to set up his new Maori political party and Mr Fox is going to be paid only $36000 a year for a very very part-time job as chairman of the Maori Television Service.” We thought that maybe we were wrong that maybe this was kosher after all. But revelation after revelation in documents that came out under the Official Information Act told us that our original suspicions were right. There was something very very rotten indeed in the genesis of this Maori Television Service. The intention was to buy Mr Fox off from setting up his new Maori political party and the $36000 which was the maximum fee he was going to get turned into a very much larger director’s fee. Then it got topped up again by a new consultancy arrangement so that he was to receive $100000 near as damn it and $50000 in expenses on top not even for a full year either. 
So members on this side of the House scratch their heads and say in amazement that they were suspicious initially about this arrangement but that in no way did they envisage things could go as far and as badly wrong as they have done. Having gone through the saga of the Davy appointment we now have the very same Mr Fox on $160000 as the chief executive. I have been flicking through some of the papers that have just been released as the State Services Commission was asked to comment on Mr Fox’s contract. These are indeed revealing because there is a requirement for the State Services Commission to comment on these contracts and in particular on the job descriptions. I quote Mr Dave Cox on the job description for Mr Fox: “I am a bit worried about the job description. If as you say it is the same as used for Davy then defending the Fox appointment on the grounds of te reo intimate knowledge of the establishment process so far and broadcasting background could be problematic. Will you line Davy up against these criteria?” . 
What he is saying is that the appointment of Mr Fox could not possibly be the result of the application of the job description to his particular set of skills. It goes on: “However if the job description were now to change it is even worse as Fox has already been identified as the preferred candidate. An alteration of the job description after the event is a no-no.” That is what the State Services Commission told the Minister’s own officials who signed the cheques and okayed the process. It said that there was no proper basis in process for the appointment of Mr Fox as the chief executive that the job description that got Mr Davy appointed was the same job description that got Mr Fox appointed and that one could not possibly line up both those candidates and justify both of their appointments under the same job description. Then it went on to say that of course changing that job description was a “no-no” so we have a little bit of a problem on our hands in terms of process. 
Finally because the directors decided to push the announcement out anyway the Government had to go along for the ride. I say to the Minister today that as I vote to oppose this service I promise him that in the select committee in the questions process in the House and in the other avenues under the Official Information Act that are available to members I will be very vigilant about this service because I know and he knows that the Government’s motives in passing this bill are entirely political. They are entirely concerned with propping up the political fortunes of the Labour Party and with ensuring that Mr Fox is taken out of the play as a candidate and as the leader of a new political party and we will hold the Government to account. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I remind the Labour Party that the idea of having a Maori television service has been around since I was in about form 2 when television was available to the masses in New Zealand. Certainly we kids from the poor side of town had to wait longer than others before we got to have television in our own homes. But the idea of a Maori television service is not new at all and I am delighted that we are now seeing real progress on the provision of such a service. My pronunciation of Maori words is abysmal. I keep working on it and I know there are a lot of people who similarly want to improve their pronunciation. In fact at 6 a.m. this morning I was watching  
Te Karere  
and listening very carefully. I am also aware from the other part of my heritage of languages that were dying such as the Welsh and Celtic languages where those countries very wisely invested time in their languages so that they would be preserved for future generations. It must be an absolute tragedy for people to know that the language of their forefathers and foremothers would possibly be lost. 
This is important legislation. I cannot understand the—I was going to say covert but I will be frank and say overt—the overt opposition with unpleasant undertones behind it from some of the members of the Opposition. We need to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is about reflecting the New Zealand that we want to see for the future. Our children support this kind of legislation. The things being said by some members of the Opposition just makes them look like dinosaurs. Let us get on with this bill. It is a very good progressive piece of legislation. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I will just take a short call on this bill. My fellow MP Mr Gudgeon has obviously covered all the good ingredients. I will cover some of the good and some of the bad. We all know that New Zealand First will oppose this bill on these very important points. This proposed channel has already suffered some credibility problems with regard to the appointment of Mr Davy and the recent restructuring of all that. 
Firstly I want to look at coverage. Obviously this is a concern in the Wairarapa and on the East Coast. As we have already heard a large number of iwi in north Auckland will not be able to get coverage. If that is correct then why are we going ahead with this thing? I have spoken to some of the people on the East Coast and to Ngati Porou and there will be a problem up there. 
I feel a bit whakama for the Minister sitting there all on his lonesome. Where are the other Maori MPs? Why are they not here supporting the bill? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: They are at the tangi. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: That is fine but I am very surprised that they are not sitting around the Minister supporting him in respect of this important channel. 
The other thing I want to touch on is te reo. New Zealand First is not against the pronunciation of Maori and the resurgence of te reo. If I did not support it my mother-in-law would clip my ears when I got home tonight so I have to support it. 
The other issue is cost. To be a member of this particular channel will put pressures on some of the families who subscribe to it. I remember visiting Hawaii driving past some of the back parts and seeing a receiving dish. I think the dish was more expensive than the house and the car. We do not want to see that sort of thing emerge here in Aotearoa. 
I have some real problems with this budget. Wayne Walden who came in to restructure this project after the debacle with Mr Davy has a credible background. He was the chief executive officer of Deka and has a lot of experience on how to make a dollar but—and this is the “but” part of it—Mr Walden and his team were asked to put a new budget together and also asked what they would need to take this thing to the next part of the proposal. They came up with a figure of about $12 million. But what did the Labour Government offer them? It offered a lot less than $12 million. How often will the Government keep doing that? As I have just said this channel is already behind the ball because of finance and is on the road to destruction. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Way behind! 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Yes way behind! During the Maori Affairs Committee hearing I asked Mr Fox what this channel would require now that it was hopefully getting itself back on its feet. He mentioned that they would have to look at new technology offshore. I am sure that the $12 million that Mr Walden budgeted for was part of that. I have some concerns about the technology that will be put in place. 
I now want to touch on the issue of failure. If this project fails who fails? The Government will not fail but once again Maoridom will fail because the appropriate measures have not been taken to make sure that this thing stacks up. 
With those short words New Zealand First will oppose this bill—not for some of the reasons that have been mentioned but for good reasons and on good common-sense issues. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the a 
mendments recommended by the Maori Affairs Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes63 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Television Service Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Bill read a second time. 
War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Veterans' Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The bill fulfils an important pre-election promise to enable veterans of working age to participate in voluntary or paid employment should they be able. Making this change and providing financial support to veterans when they are unable to work and sustaining that support while they make the transition back into the workforce will benefit their overall rehabilitation. 
This bill has the strong support of both parties within Government. I would also like to thank both United Future and the Greens for their support to ensure that the Government had the necessary support. It would be remiss of me not to thank parties from across the House that offered their support for the bill. I acknowledge the work undertaken by the Social Services Committee which is very ably chaired by my colleague Georgina Beyer the Labour MP for Wairarapa and a strong supporter of the veteran community and indeed the work of the committee as a whole. I acknowledge the officials who worked on this bill. In particular I thank the director of the Office of Veterans Affairs in New Zealand Jessie Gunn and other officials from that office. 
This bill acknowledges the special status of New Zealand’s war veterans and the ongoing impact that service in a war or emergency has on an individual’s life and on the lives of his or her family. This legislation is an example of that as it provides assistance while enabling working-age veterans to make choices and manage the impact of their service on them and their families. The intention of this bill is to provide veterans who are under retirement age with a mechanism for rehabilitation. A point of difference with this bill compared with other social security legislative measures is that it does not contain a definition of full-time work. That will allow veterans to work any number of hours depending on their capability without removing their entitlement to a veteran’s pension. 
The Government introduced two Supplementary Order Papers. The first restored in legislation for consumer price index adjustment purposes that the minimum level of the veteran’s pension for a married couple is not to be less than 65 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. The second amendment amended the schedules to allow for an increase in the rates of pay in line with the increase of 2.72 percent in the All Groups Consumer Price Index. Both changes are quite important. I am pleased that the House supported the Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage. 
The provisions in this bill will provide for the future needs of younger members of the veteran population and passing it fulfils another pre-election promise. I am proud to serve as Minister of Veterans Affairs in supporting the passage of this bill through its third reading. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 National is supporting this legislation and I imagine that every single party in the House will be supporting it. The bill rectifies some anomalies in the legislation which have been recognised by all parties. It recognises that increasingly in modern times veterans will be active in campaigns of often quite short duration—rather than those on the scale of wars like World War I or World War II—and in a whole series of events that we know well from our post-World War II history like the Korean or Vietnam wars. But on top of that there are vast numbers of specialised UN supervisory operations and many of those are extremely demanding. We in this House and in this country often do not fully recognise just how demanding service is for example on the Lebanese border. Having talked to a number of the people who worked there I know it is dangerous that people are at risk of serious injury and that soldiers sailors and others working there from other countries have been injured and even killed. 
This more modern approach recognises that it is no longer appropriate for the Government of the day to declare a particular category of service as qualifying for pensions. It is more important to examine each individual’s service history and ask whether he or she suffered disablement or injury in the course of service to New Zealand and recognise that. I welcome that approach. I have had—and I am sure many members of Parliament have had—submissions and letters from constituents who have had huge difficulty in getting not just the current Government but also the previous Government to recognise the nature of that service and recompense veterans properly for their injuries. With this change of administration and the provisions of the legislation in the House today I would like to think that those kinds of issues will be in the past and that it will be fundamentally easier for our service people. They have a demanding vocation—not just when shot and shell are being fired but in terms of the whole nature of the service itself. It taxes the body and mind in a way that probably no other vocation does. That is why we have to have special legislation and why we have to update that legislation in order to recognise the changed nature of armed conflict. 
I want to talk about a couple of broader issues. I note that our country handles these matters differently from other countries. For instance we essentially have two types of war pension. The first is a disablement pension that is available at whatever age a person is disabled. It tends to be quite a modest sum additional to other income. On top of that when veterans reach the statutory retirement age of 65 or more accurately the eligibility age for New Zealand superannuation there is an election. The veteran either takes New Zealand superannuation or the war pension. They are the same amount of money and personally I have always found that to be something of an anomaly. Certainly there is still the disablement pension or some limited entitlements as well but it seems to me that we have not properly recognised that a person in receipt of a war pension post-65 should really be getting a bit more than New Zealand superannuation. 
The argument in the past for good and proper reasons was that the country simply could not afford it. Certainly the number of veterans from World War I and World War II was such a huge percentage of the total population that I suspect the country felt it could not afford to provide say 150 percent and service was recognised in other ways—educational benefits in the 1950s and 1960s settlement on farms and in businesses and so forth. Both National and Labour Governments have done a great deal over the years to recognise that service—but that was then. All of those people are older now and almost exclusively retired. Yet we do not now financially recognise that service; we say it was recognised in the past. Knowing that veterans have been involved in dangerous service and given that the numbers who serve in our armed forces are so much smaller now as a percentage of our total population I think that one of the issues we will have to examine as a Parliament and as a Government is whether we as a community should recognise that maybe an additional payment beyond the level of superannuation is justified once those servicemen and servicewomen reach 65. 
I know that the Royal New Zealand Returned Services Association has raised that question with the Government. It has certainly done so with the Minister Mr Harry Duynhoven and no doubt talked with Minister George Hawkins. As I said I understand the reasons that such a payment was felt not to be financially possible in the past but I have to ask the Government whether that issue should not be looked at afresh. The nature of the service is different today and the numbers of citizens involved—male and female—is so much lower. The circumstances that led to the original legislation are different today. So whilst we have recognised an anomaly today—and that is an important thing and will be welcomed by veterans throughout New Zealand—we still need to look at that broader question. 
I know that there are big differences from time to time in this House about whether our nation should be involved in any particular conflict. I am not going to go into that because I do not think it is appropriate to do so in this speech. But I would go so far as to put on the record that there are those differences and that they are increasingly being understood. Indeed they were well-reflected in question time today. That is not the issue for the veterans. They do not make the decisions about where they should serve; those decisions are made by the people that they and the rest of New Zealanders elect. We should always remember that. They do not get to make the choice but in each and every case they serve our country valiantly and loyally. What we are doing today is recognising that service. 
The reason I have mentioned that is that just recently I was at the return of Her Majesty’s vessel  
Te Kaha 
 at Devonport. The families there had waited 8 months for their family members to return yet outside the gates there was a group of protestors. I thought: “Why are you doing this; why are you protesting against these service people?” It was not the service people’s decision although I am sure that they wanted to be involved. Fundamentally protests should be aimed at those who make the decisions. I would like to think that there is a greater maturity in civil society in that people understand the difference between those who serve their country on the directions that Governments elected from this House make and those who make the decisions. It is a hugely important distinction and I was extremely disappointed to see those protestors there that day. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It is a noble and proper thing that any nation recognises the contribution of those who give service in its defence. The notion of war pensions is one that has a resonance when one looks around this Chamber and sees the plaques that commemorate the various battlefields on which New Zealanders have given service over a long period of time. Although I was not around at the end of World War II I have seen the newsreels I have read the newspapers and I have heard the statements that echoed those of Lloyd George in an earlier time about a land fit for heroes to live in and all the opportunities that were promised the returning veterans about the nation they would be a part of rebuilding. Now 60 years later when we look at the state of our war pensions administration it pulls us up very quickly that that rhetoric has not often been matched by the way the law has been applied. 
I am delighted to support this bill because it tidies up a number of issues that have been left to languish for far too long. I find it extraordinary for instance that only by this bill are we transferring provisions for veterans’ pensions to the War Pensions Act—which was passed in the year I was born. It has been part of a transitional piece of legislation since 1990. 
Rodney Hide 
: When you were born! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No that is some time after I was born. I was just about to start school! But veterans might well be forgiven for wondering what priority was attached to their well-being and what gratitude to their contribution by the historically haphazard way in which the law has been applied. There will be some who will say that those events occurred a long time ago—even though there are still New Zealand military personnel involved in conflict situations—that the notion of “veteran” really is something that belongs to a bygone era. I challenge anyone who holds that view to spend even a modicum of time with people who have served and suffered not just themselves but through the loss of comrades in conflict; or any of the other deprivations that go hand in hand with that situation. They would quickly be disabused of the notion that the concept of a veteran is something that belongs to the past. It is a mark of pride for many veterans that they are treated differently and it is important that this bill preserves that distinction even if the monetary value of the pension payable to them does not differ significantly from national superannuation. It is the point of separation that is the important distinction. By continuing to treat them under the title “war pensioner” we continue to recognise their achievement. That is why this bill is important because it ensures that on into the 21st century as perhaps the numbers of veterans thin that recognition does not dim. United Future is pleased to support this bill. 
I conclude with some reference to the comments made by the speaker who preceded me. I was intrigued by his comments that perhaps we should in effect pay a premium to war veterans who attain the age of eligibility for national superannuation. The cynic in me suggests that that is an easy promise to make because the numbers are in a sense reducing—though I am not suggesting that that was the member’s attitude. It is a far more substantial issue than that and one that merits serious consideration. It is not a question of a two-tier arrangement but more a question of saying that given what those people have been through given all the other stresses and strains they have endured in the years subsequent to their service is there a little more we can do? We have already had inquiries into various allegations that exposure to certain toxic chemicals or nuclear explosions or the like have had a detrimental impact on the health of not just those who were allegedly exposed but also their descendants. Many will claim that other less-specific conditions and problems are a lasting by-product of their service. It may well be therefore that something along the lines that the member has suggested has merit. That proposal is not part of this legislation but I think it is something that perhaps this House maybe on a bipartisan basis might want to give some consideration to. 
In that respect can I step way outside this bill—because again it has some relevance to the issue—and simply acknowledge the work that the member who preceded me has done to protect the employment of volunteers who give their time for military engagement. I hope that issue can be resolved fairly shortly because those people might be the servants of today but they are the veterans of tomorrow and they also deserve recognition. I am happy to indicate United Future’s support for the third reading of this bill. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is satisfied with this bill so we support it. If it were possible we would like to see an increase in the veterans pension in recognition of the service of those people to their country. I suppose I could stand here and say that I am one of those persons who would be eligible for this pension. Only about 2 weeks ago I attended my battalion’s reunion in Hastings and on the list were the names of about 200 men who have already passed away. It saddened me to see that. 
But getting back to this bill I say that in the past the men and women who served—I am aware especially of those who served in the Second World War—in the armed forces were not aware of the benefits available to them as service people. Some have passed away as a result of their service in the desert but they were not aware of the benefits they could have claimed. They died without having that facility offered to them. Maybe that was because of their lack of knowledge or ignorance of what was available to them. But I think it is the responsibility of this Government and was the responsibility of previous Governments to make our servicemen and servicewomen aware of what is available to them. I look at the battalions of about 600 men and women that have served in East Timor. My battalion was a full operational battalion of 1040 men—no women. A lot of the guys asked me this question in Hastings: “What are we entitled to as veterans?” 
I visited Australia towards the end of last year. A great number of the servicemen whom I served with are now living in Australia and have lived there for quite a few years. They commented on the way that the Australian Government recognises them and takes care of them and said it is way beyond what our own Governments have done for our people here. When I listened to the previous speakers I was thinking that our service people deserve more than they get now. They would never ask for what they should have; they are too proud to do that. So we need to look at how we provide for the people who have served our country. How can we make them aware that they are entitled to this pension as a form of appreciation that this nation offers them? It will be a few years yet before I fall into that category. But I think I might just take that pension up when the time comes because I am now aware of what is there for me and for those who have served our country. 
About 3 weeks ago I was asked a question that I did not want to answer. It was whether I had been involved in taking the lives of any of the men or people I had fought against. That was a very hard question for me to answer. My reply was: “I have photos. Do you want to see them?”. The questioner hesitated because he did not think I had been involved in that kind of action. It has had an effect on me as a person who has served in the services. Whenever I am driving today and a car backfires my reaction is immediate. Sometimes my wife has looked at me when she has travelled with me and she has asked me what was going on because I have jumped. I have reacted to that sound as if I were in action even though that was over 30 years ago. 
Nearly every day of the week I get correspondence from veterans who have served in South-east Asia asking what I can do about Agent Orange and also from the naval service people who served around Christmas Island during the testing of the nuclear bombs there. I was at university in Hawaii when one of those bombs went off on Christmas Island. That night was brighter than the day. I did not realise that we had service people serving there in that area. Those men—and women if there were any on those ships—are still asking what the Government will do about that service. That is an indictment on our Governments which sent those men and women away. 
David Parker 
: And the British Government. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: I am talking about the New Zealand Government. Let us forget about the British Government; we made our decisions here. So I ask what is being done for those people. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. Hopefully we will look at this pension not as something we owe to service people but as something we give to them in appreciation of the service that they have given in order to enable us to have what we enjoy today. When I first came into Parliament many people looked at the Returned Services Association badge that I wear. A guy in our office did not wear his Returned Services Association badge. I said he should wear it and now he now does. Why is that? It is because I reminded him of his responsibility and of the service he rendered to our country. Now he wears his badge every day. 
Have any members been brought up in an environment where they were surrounded by men who had served our country and saw the battle scars and the bayonet wounds on them? As a kid I poked my finger in and out of the shrapnel holes in my father’s legs. I have seen the shape of a bayonet on the back of one of my uncles. But not once did they ask for an appreciation of their service. They died that way. In fact my father died because of the shrapnel in his body which caused the cancer he died from. 
I am bringing members back to earth here. I say we should look after our service people and take care of them. They need to be taken care of without having to ask the Government for help. As a returned serviceman I advise that strongly. When I look at the men whom I served with—over a company of them have passed on and have not enjoyed recognition by the Governments that sent them away overseas—I feel sorry for them. But those people would do it again if they had to. In fact they ask why they are not in Iraq. That is the spirit that these people have. They are prepared to do that. I did not answer that question. So I say that shows the quality of the people we have in our country. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I listened with interest to what the member who has just resumed his seat had to say. I appreciated the considered contribution he made on the bill. In respect of his questions about the level of pension that is being paid to our veterans I am sure that he will be aware from his notes when he has a moment to read them that the minimum level of a veterans pension for a married couple remains legislated for at not less than 60 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. That is something that has been fought for long and hard. 
I have taken an interest in this legislation not only because of my electorate constituency but also because of my own interest in the issue. I too come from a family that has served this country for three generations. In my generation my husband and my brother were also in the New Zealand services. They too would never ask for anything—as most people who have served our country would not either. But I am very pleased that after many years we are able to bring this legislation into the House. It is timely and it has been well considered. I am delighted to say that at long last after spending 6 years in Opposition it is wonderful to be in Government and to see it do something tangible about the issue. I commend the bill to the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is a great honour to follow Mr Bill Gudgeon who is one of the now few members of this Parliament who have served overseas. There was a time when it would be hard to imagine getting elected to Parliament not having been a returned serviceman. We are fortunate indeed to have the experience and insights that Mr Bill Gudgeon brings us. He has been on patrol in the jungles of South-east Asia with a band of brothers and he knows full well what those of us who have not served know—what it is like to serve. He also knows what it is like to come back to New Zealand and what it is like 30 years on when driving a motorcar down the road to still be reminded at a moment’s notice of something that happened so long ago. It is an honour to follow him in this debate. 
This is a bill that reflects well on this Parliament. It is also one that reflects well on this Government. We have at long last I think gone some way towards addressing the special concerns of veterans in this country and I commend the Government for that. I also think it bodes well that this Parliament is of one voice in agreeing that this bill is right and proper but that we as members of Parliament have to work together to do better for our servicemen and servicewomen. We have to do that not just because it is right and not just because there is an implicit promise to every serviceman and servicewoman but because of a very practical pragmatic reason. Everyone I believe—I think I can count on my Green colleagues on this—wants us to have a strong military. We want servicemen and servicewomen who are professional who are competent who have high morale and who are good at what Governments ask them to do. I cannot imagine that anyone in this Parliament would say otherwise. We might disagree about how they should be deployed where they should be deployed and how they should be resourced but it is in the interests of every member of Parliament that we have a good competent and professional military. 
We have been reminded in these times watching television nightly that a man or a woman who puts on a uniform without being consulted without being asked for his or her opinion can be sent into harm’s way. Once those service people have those uniforms on their lives are at risk their bodies are at risk and their minds are at risk. I think it is important that the young men and young women who are thinking about signing up to serve with our services can be confident that if they are damaged in war and if they are damaged in service to their county during peacetime—damaged not just physically but psychologically and emotionally—then whatever Government is in office they will be looked after because they are men and women who have served. If we do not do that how can we expect to have a good military? It is not enough just to pay well—and we all believe I think that they should be better paid and better resourced—but there has to be a concern about how a serviceman or a servicewoman will be looked after following service. 
So I think we have made progress with this bill and I think we have made progress with this Parliament because the best thing we can do is to keep politics out of this. I do not hear of anyone standing up in this House and saying that we should not be doing what we are doing. I think it is right that Opposition members chide a Government to do better but let them remember that when their term in Government comes they too are honour-bound to look after our servicemen and servicewomen. I congratulate the Prime Minister and this Government on this bill and on the moves they have made. I chide them for not going far enough but today is not the day for that. I congratulate this Parliament on its support for veterans and—I say this to Mr Gudgeon—on still having veterans here who truly know the horrors the thrills and spills and the scars and tears of service. 
It is important also that we put on the record the important turn-round in attitude that has occurred in the Office of Veterans Affairs. There has been a 180-degree turn-round and that has been achieved by the efforts of the Prime Minister and—I do not think the Prime Minister would mind if I took something away from her—by the good work of Colonel Jessie Gunn and her staff who have turned round a department that treated veterans as beneficiaries on the take trying to pull a fast one to an office that is special and understands that veterans are special—that they are proud people who do not easily put their hands up. Mr Gudgeon is right: the Office of Veterans Affairs has to go looking for its clients because they can lie out there in our country for 30 years badly damaged badly scarred and too proud to put up their hands and ask for help. It is important we recognise the work that Colonel Jessie Gunn and her staff do. They do what they do on a very very modest budget and they have to cover the whole country. I am sure that as MPs we have had one or two veterans come through our doors. I am sure that we realise what a tough job it can be tending to the needs concerns and issues that confront them and their families.  
On behalf of this Parliament we should all salute Colonel Jessie Gunn for the work she does. For the first time in many many years we have in the Office of Veterans Affairs a leader who empathises with the plight of veterans and who does not see the Office of Veterans Affairs as a cost-centre to be administered. Veterans—from whatever theatre from whatever age from whatever period—are seen as proud servicemen and servicewomen who need to be looked after for the simple reason that they donned a uniform and served their country and who have for the rest of their days a contract with the Government that we are duty-bound and honour-bound to uphold. Let us all agree on this: Colonel Jessie Gunn has done a wonderful job.  
This bill is a good one. Let us strive as a Parliament to do better. Let us strive as a Parliament to support the Office of Veterans Affairs and to get it some more resources. All our pious words are nothing without the necessary resources that are needed to look after our veterans so that we do honour the promise of a land fit for heroes. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to say how pleased we are to see the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) finally through its third reading debate today. I know that there are a lot of veterans out there who have been waiting for this long overdue piece of legislation to become law. It is very timely that it is finally happening just a couple of weeks before Anzac Day 2003. 
This bill helps consolidate the legislation dealing with veterans’ entitlements under the War Pensions Act and away from the morass of social welfare law. While I hold my own reservations about the negative way in which beneficiaries are viewed by all too many in our community I can also understand why veterans want the dignity of recognition separately and in their own right. Although the legislation around the actual machinery of payment of war pensions stays with the 1964 Social Security Act the fact that this bill ensures that the overarching law will be clearly distinguished from the Act is welcomed by submitters and I think by all MPs who sat on the Social Services Committee. 
The Green Party is also pleased that this bill finally puts people in receipt of war pensions on the same footing as other people on income support in terms of giving those of working age the right to work either voluntarily or in a paid job and having their pension abated. But the bill also distinguishes war veterans from other beneficiaries in that it makes special provision for them to be able to work any number of hours without having their entitlement to the war pension taken away from them. Again this reinforces the fact that veterans have a special status because of what they have sacrificed for their country and I believe no one in this House will ever begrudge them that. 
Finally I would like to acknowledge firstly the people who had the courage to make oral and written submissions on this bill to our select committee. It was very emotional to hear from some of those people. Some of them were getting on in years and it was touching to see people who had made the effort to come to Wellington and speak to the committee directly and to hear their voices. I also acknowledge as others have done the Office of Veterans Affairs the officials who helped guide us through the bill the other members of the select committee and all the other MPs in this House who support this bill which has been a long time coming. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call just to follow on in the multi-partisan approach that has been taken on this bill. It is a good example not only of the Labour-Progressive Government honouring a pre-election commitment but also of Parliament recognising the special role that war veterans play in our country. 
The one key point I would like to put on the record relates to some of the changes we made through the progression of the bill from its introduction. The bill will be of huge benefit to the veteran community because we have been able to increase the minimum level of a veterans pension for a married couple to not less than 65 percent of the average ordinary time weekly wage. That is significant because previously that rate had been set at 60 percent for married couples when one was on the veterans pension so the Government has through this bill been able to change that rate from 60 percent to 65 percent. We are very pleased to have been able to do that because it reflects the importance and the value that Parliament and the Government place on our veterans. 
The second key thing we have done is to increase the pension rate in line with a 2.72 percent rise in the consumer price index. This is important because we do not want to see the value of superannuation or the war veterans pension fall as the cost of living goes up so by putting in this consumer price index adjuster the real value of the war veterans pension is kept for people on that entitlement. 
The bill as it is at the moment also makes some amendments surrounding the veterans pension by allowing veterans of working age who need support during rehabilitation to participate in voluntary or part-time work without losing their entire pension entitlement. The bill puts in place a very important process for that whole issue of rehabilitation for war pensioners who are hoping to move back into the work force—normally into part-time work but sometimes if they do want to go into full-time work there can be some difficulties with their pension entitlement. The bill makes a big difference to people in that way. It is important that we have an individual piece of legislation that covers that. We talk about the special status that our war pensioners have. It should not just come under normal or standard law. Parliament ought to put some time aside by way of special legislation to ensure that we recognise the place they hold. That is why one of the effects of this bill is to have the war pension as something in its own right not just as a standard social security entitlement as something that we say is special for those New Zealanders who have served this country in time of conflict. 
I would like to join with Mr Hide in acknowledging Mr Bill Gudgeon the New Zealand First member who spoke very movingly earlier on about both his own experience and the experience of the generation that preceded him and the sacrifice that was made by those who gave their lives. He also made the point that there was a cost to those who came home in that they had a number of very serious physical injuries that often hampered their ability to go into full-time work or back into work they may have been doing prior to their service to the country. So again that reinforces the importance of the bill in recognising the special circumstances of recipients of the war pensions. It is good to have members who are able to bring that home quite clearly to other members of the House. Mine is a generation that has not had to go to war but Mr Gudgeon’s did and it was good to have him in the House and able to put that into all our minds so that we do not think we are debating these bills in isolation. They are part of a much wider issue which is about protecting our older people particularly those who are in the war pensions category. 
The Social Services Committee under the leadership of Georgina Beyer the member for Wairarapa delivered a fantastic report. Its members worked together very well and the bill we see before the House is worthy of the support of all parties. Our colleagues in United Future the Greens ACT the Labour-Progressive Coalition Government and also National have worked together and it is a bill that deserves the honour of this Parliament. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I concur with the previous speaker. National will be supporting this bill and has done right through. It is important legislation. We will commemorate Anzac Day in a couple of weeks’ time and recognise the servicemen and women who have fought around the world. We owe them a debt of gratitude. If we look around the walls of this House we see plaques commemorating the great battles that have been fought on the world scene—the Atlantic Crete El Alamein and behind us here I see North Africa. If we look further up the Chamber we see plaques commemorating the First World War battles. I cannot read them all from here but we have Egypt Gallipoli and the Somme. Around the walls of this debating chamber we acknowledge and recognise the sacrifices that have been made. 
This bill is important because it recognises that veterans have not been fairly treated. The bill makes some logical changes by moving responsibilities for veterans pensions to the Office of Veterans Affairs. That was acknowledged by Rodney Hide who made very strong points with which we concur as we concur with the comments made by Bill Gudgeon. When someone has had the experience of serving New Zealand in the theatre of war we appreciate that contribution. 
The bill recognises that military personnel are dealing with smaller skirmishes today. The skirmishes of the past—Vietnam Korea and the First and Second World Wars—have long gone. Today we have servicemen and women who are in more of a supervisory role with the United Nations. Today these skirmishes are much smaller so the numbers involved in the military are fewer than in earlier years. 
This bill will allow our servicemen and women to access war pensions. The entitlement has been mentioned. There will be two types of war pension—the disability pension and when veterans reach the age of 65 they will be able to choose the superannuation scheme or to remain with the war pension scheme. As a previous National speaker has said there is no recognition between superannuation and the war pension scheme. There may be an opportunity in the future to provide a recognition that these people have fought for New Zealand and for the freedoms that we enjoy and that there should be recognition that they be paid more; not just the same as a superannuitant. So that is the current position and I am not advocating today that this bill does not go far enough. There will be opportunities in the future and that is one of the things we would certainly like to see happen. 
This bill is supported by Parliament and it is pleasing to see that all parties are supporting it. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms and we will be acknowledging that on Anzac Day in a couple of weeks’ time. I believe that this bill is a move in the right direction and National has great pleasure in supporting it. 
Bill read a third time. 
Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill 
Procedure 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I seek leave that the debate on the Committee stage of this bill be taken as one wide-ranging debate over all parts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will so occur. 
National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister responsible for the National Library 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to. 
Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill 
In Committee 
Preamble clauses 1 to 124 and schedules 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 As we are all getting accustomed to now in this Chamber after a number of years of these settlement bills coming through the ability of anybody to change any provisions in a settlement bill is pretty limited. What sits behind bills of this kind is a deed of settlement and of course that is what we have with this bill. 
The role of Parliament and the select committee is pretty clear; it is to scrutinise the bill. I want to comment on three of the parts of the bill and in particular on clause 13 in Part 2. Nearly all of the many submissions that the select committee heard revolved around the inclusion of Tangahoe and Pakakohi in this settlement. Clause 13 “Meaning of Ngati Ruanui” says who is part of that. It means the iwi and so on and every individual etc. It also includes certain hapu and then includes Tangahoe and Pakakohi. Just so that we are all aware in this case these two hapu had extreme objection to their inclusion. I want to remind us all—I am sure the Minister may do so as well—that this is an important issue; it is very important to hapu. In the end however this settlement will proceed with their inclusion. 
We reviewed what was done to see whether it was fair that they were included but the committee knew that there was not a lot we could do about it. The inclusion of Pakakohi and Tangahoe has been to the Waitangi Tribunal three times in the last 2 years and of course the tribunal traversed their inclusion as to whether it was right and proper that they should be included. On all of those three occasions the tribunal was not prepared to recommend that the Crown change its approach and found in favour of the settlement proceeding. There was also a challenge to the High Court but the claims of these two hapu were rejected—there being a finding that there was no justiciable basis for there to be anything else. The committee was also privy to Cabinet papers that had traversed the issue with a lot of scrutiny. 
On balance while I guess these two hapu firmly believe that they should be treated individually and separately in the end certain judgments have to be made and those judgments have come out against their wishes—but well traversed. In the end members can only show that they have had the best advice and the best material available to them to make a judgment. In my view the matter has been well traversed. Having said that there will still be members of those hapu who will feel disaffected. None the less clause 13 is very clear that they are included. 
As I said in my second reading speech I hope that the runanga who have the responsibility once the transfers are made and once the bill becomes law and who will receive the settlement assets will work very very hard to make sure that these two hapu are indeed included not just in word but in action and in the way that the settlement starts to devolve in terms of value to all those who are entitled. It is incumbent upon us at all stages of this bill to make sure that we acknowledge the submission and the entreaties of these two hapu and show that we have given them serious consideration. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill is now at the stage where I would say that the claimants are close to a mood of celebration because of the bill coming close to finality. New Zealand First has supported the bill and still supports it at this stage so that the Ngati Ruanui people can bring this issue to a closure. 
As stated in my last presentation I hope that those concerned have learnt from the procedures that have taken place the need for more funding for the Waitangi Tribunal and also that matters can be more streamlined to assist in clearing the backlog of claims waiting to be settled. I know that Ngati Ruanui will settle their affairs amongst the hapu concerned namely Pakakohi and Tangahoe. If members understand tikanga on the marae people are allowed to view their own personal thoughts on subjects and topics and those issues remain there on the marae. I am sure that Ngati Ruanui with their expertise and wisdom will be able to negotiate with the two hapu concerned. I am very confident and hopeful that in time Ngati Ruanui will through expert advice and counsel administer to their affairs in a pleasing and positive manner. We have learnt from history the things that have not been done right and that have gone wrong and the repercussions that follow. I am sure that Ngati Ruanui with the wisdom their kaumatua have and the leadership of their iwi in conjunction with those who have not yet agreed will come to some amicable agreement. 
New Zealand First recommends to the Committee that the bill be fully supported so that Ngati Ruanui—and I am sure that some of their members are here—will go back to their hapus and their iwis and say: “Let’s prepare now for the future.” We know that there are other bills to come and we hope that Ngati Ruanui’s presentation and submissions will be a positive example for other claimants. [ 
Interruption 
] Kia ora. 
So on behalf of New Zealand First we would to add that again and re-emphasise the things that need to be done. I must also add that not only will they have to work hard but smarter. That is where it is. One can work hard and get nowhere but if one is smart one will have positive results. Tena koutou Ngati Ruanui. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this bill today as the member of Parliament for Taranaki - King Country. Obviously that is the area that the Ngati Ruanui iwi comes from although I think its boundaries are slightly south of where the boundary of my electorate starts. This legislation and this process have a very long history. I suspect there are people not very far away from us right now who have had a very long journey to this point and I welcome them and congratulate them on the efforts that they have put in. I also congratulate the Minister on finally getting the legislation to this point. This is an important process that we must go through. 
I also acknowledge those who have gone before this Minister. I acknowledge the Hon Jim Bolger and the leadership he showed with regard to bringing about the settlement of the grievances that have gone in this country now for far too long between the indigenous people and the rest of society. I congratulate the Hon Doug Graham on the work he did despite the controversy around bringing this whole package together. I have to say that the $1 billion fiscal envelope was not the most popular decision that any Government could come up with so I acknowledge both the Hon Jim Bolger and the Hon Doug Graham. I also acknowledge the work that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has done and is continuing to do on behalf of the National Party in that regard. 
The issues in the various parts of this legislation should not be taken lightly. There is no question in my mind that a whole group of New Zealanders was done an injustice by previous Governments and previous majorities in this country. The research that has been done to get the Ngati Ruanui claim to the point where the Crown has now accepted a settlement of $41 million is substantial. The research that is behind this claim the information that we now have and the final process that has brought us to this point are substantial and that should not be brushed over lightly. 
Various clauses in this bill highlight some of the difficulties in the process. In particular two hapu have voiced an enormous amount of concern. During the Maori Affairs Committee process there were 44 submissions 29 of which were opposed to the bill. In a democratic society that would suggest that this legislation should not proceed. But given the history behind the claim and the amount of research that has brought this legislation to this point it would be absolutely churlish for any member to stand in this Chamber at this point in time and say that because there is a group—no matter how well meaning it is—that is opposed to this legislation we should not proceed with it. For that reason I endorse the fact that we are now proceeding with it. 
I also say to the various interjectors on the Government side of the Chamber who clearly have a view on this bill that they should take a call in order to tell us their view. Some of the people out there in society listening to the radio broadcast of these proceedings will be interested in what the Maori members of the Labour caucus have to say on this bill particularly during the Committee stage with regard to the two hapu that feel aggrieved because this process is proceeding and particularly with regard to those who made submissions to the select committee. I urge those members to take a call in order to state their claim. It is unfortunate that some members of Parliament will not support this legislation going forward. It would be excellent if we could have unanimous support for something as significant as this bill. However those members have very good reasons for that and once again I invite the Government members to take a call and tell us why they think this bill should go ahead. I am sure that those who are opposed to it will take a call to tell us why they think it should not. 
I should also say that this settlement will allow a group of people within the Taranaki area to go forward and contribute to society in a way that it has never been able to. Those people have been disadvantaged. I have grown up in that area so I understand the grievance and the heartache. I understand that generation after generation of Ngati Ruanui has had deep concerns about the way in which it was treated. The facts that that has never ever been acknowledged that the Crown is now saying it accepts it has made mistakes and that an apology has been given are in themselves very good reasons for this legislation to go ahead. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I endorse everything that my colleague has been saying. Obviously he is from Taranaki. He is a good old Taranaki boy and is probably more familiar with this issue than I am because I am from another part of the country. Of course our colleague Mahara Okeroa is from there but that goes without saying. I am pleased that Shane Ardern is here in the Chamber this afternoon to add to our support for the bill. 
I just want to comment on clause 15 which contains one of the extremely important provisions in any claims settlement bill. That refers to the jurisdiction of the courts and the tribunal which are henceforth excluded from inquiring into or looking into any of the Ngati Ruanui claims. The reason I want to make a couple of comments about it is that a lot of people outside this House—Pakeha people and some Maori—always have some anxieties. They say it is OK that we are settling a claim but they are concerned that what will happen is that the claimants will come back to the Crown again. I would imagine that the only reason anybody would come back to the Crown again would be that a settlement was patently unfair. 
If we look at the provisions of this settlement we see that the members of the runanga said that while they accept that the Crown can never fully make up for the grievances they suffered none the less there was an acceptance of the provisions of the deed of settlement. However for the benefit of those people who might be listening to the radio broadcast of this debate in the Committee stage I say clause 15 basically states that the settlement of the Ngati Ruanui historical claims effected by the deed releases the Crown and discharges it from all obligations and liabilities in respect of the claims hereby settled. Henceforth no court of law can inquire into or make any findings or recommendations concerning any of Ngati Ruanui’s historical claims the deed of settlement the redress provided under that deed or this legislation and this legislation itself. Clause 16 contains similar provisions in relation to the Waitangi Tribunal. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think you mispronounced the member’s name. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Mr Chairperson I commend you for the effort you are making to pronounce my name correctly. We have been having a bit of practice at that tonight and we will do some more of that. 
I was making some comments earlier about clause 15 in Part 3. To allay the anxieties of a number of New Zealanders who say to me that they understand this is a full and final settlement but who ask what the bet is that the claimants will come back to the Crown I said before dinner that claimants would come back to the Crown only if a settlement was not fair. In the case of Ngati Ruanui it has basically indicated to us that it understands that full restitution cannot be made for the losses it has suffered but on balance it thinks that this settlement is something it can take and start to build a future on. I was talking earlier about the fact that henceforth the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal are excluded from jurisdiction in terms of the claims that are settled by this deed of settlement and this legislation. 
The Minister may think it is worthwhile to confirm that as well for the benefit of those who are listening to the radio broadcast of these proceedings. As I say it is very important that members of Parliament who support the settlement recognise the importance of giving an assurance to other New Zealanders that we have done our best to provide a settlement to these people that is fair and just in the circumstances. We will set them on a path for the future in that way and minimise any possibility of them coming back to the Crown. In any event that is ruled out by this legislation. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Heamana. I mua i te haere tonu o tenei tu e mihi kau ana ki a koutou Ngati Ruanui na te mea ko tenei te wa tuatahi e tu ana au i roto i tenei kaupapa. Na reira koia nei te take e mihi atu ki a koutou. He mihi hoki ki era o nga whanaunga karanga maha i hinga atu a i tenei wa ka hoki te mahara ki Maui Prime. Ko ia tetahi i whaka timata mai i tenei kaupapa. Na reira i te po nei kua puawai. Na reira e mihi kau ana ki a ratou. 
[Greetings to you Mr Chairman. Before I continue special greetings to you Ngati Ruanui because this is the first time I have stood up to speak on this matter. It is the reason I am greeting you now. Greetings also to those relatives and the many callings who have passed away. At this time the mind goes to Maui Prime. He was one of the ones who started this matter. And so tonight it has blossomed. So I acknowledge them particularly.] 
I will keep my comments brief. I have just acknowledged the Ngati Ruanui representatives who are in the gallery tonight and also those who have passed on particularly Maui Prime who was one of the people instrumental in initiating the whole process that has allowed this bill to come to the Committee tonight helping Ngati Ruanui to realise the dreams and aspirations it had when it first lodged its claim. 
However although New Zealand First supports the bill we note in the commentary on the bill that the apology is to Ngati Ruanui only. Previous speakers have made reference to Tangahoe and Pakakohi who are relatives of Ngati Ruanui. Although this bill will certainly go some way towards meeting the claims submitted by Ngati Ruanui I think that the Crown is placing an imposition on the tribe in this legislation and that imposition is to deal with its Tangahoe and Pakakohi relatives. Given the number of representations made during the process that has allowed this bill to get to this stage I believe it is now incumbent on the principals of Ngati Ruanui to deal with their kith and kin within Tangahoe and Pakakohi as part of the settlement process. I want the Committee to realise that that imposition has been placed on Ngati Ruanui as a consequence of this bill. 
Secondly I will comment on the amount of $41 million. I suppose that if one says it quickly enough it does sound like a lot of money—and it is. However I am not quite sure whether that amount will provide the settlement that Ngati Ruanui and its various hapu deserve given the suffering they have had to bear as has been evidenced by history. I wonder whether the Crown has sold Ngati Ruanui short. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I do not really wish to interrupt the speaker but someone has a phone on. Could that person turn it off? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I heard a cellphone. There have been several instances of cellphones ringing in this Chamber and that practice is totally unacceptable. It is discourteous to members who are speaking and it is also an affront to the business of the House and to the Speaker. It is not necessary. The practice in select committees is for the offender to provide all members with morning tea and if the use of cellphones were to become the practice here the member concerned would certainly incur a hefty fine. Cellphones when switched on are not permitted in this Chamber. I will leave it at that. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Perhaps the phone that was ringing belonged to one of the departed members of Ngati Ruanui who was calling to say that what I am saying is right and that I should bid for more than $41 million. Although I say that in jest I am serious about the concern I have about the amount of the settlement. I am a little disappointed that the Government member representing Ngati Ruanui has not raised that issue. 
After looking at the number of objections that were made during the process that has brought the bill to this stage I wonder whether the Crown is leaving itself open to further litigation and therefore to further claims by the Tangahoe and Pakakohi hapu. They feel that a further breach of the treaty will occur if they are included in the bill under the collective definition of Ngati Ruanui. I just caution this Committee that although we may be settling one grievance we may be establishing another. I reiterate that the imposition we have placed on Ngati Ruanui may come back to haunt us. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have outlined our concerns about the treaty settlement process at some length and we are committed to those concerns and to trying to find ways to deal with them constructively. We believe the treaty settlement process is seriously flawed and that it causes and creates further injustice. Of particular concern to us are clauses 15 and 16 of this bill and their reference to finalising this settlement for ever. Those clauses will prevent any further investigation under any circumstances by any court or organisation into the historical claims of Ngati Ruanui Tangahoe and Pakakohi and they will prevent for ever any reconsideration of the redress package and the concerns addressed in the bill. 
The Crown itself admits that in providing this redress it cannot truly compensate for what was lost. It also clearly admits that the redress it provides is whatever is possible and appropriate at this particular time at this particular place and in these particular circumstances. So the Crown is itself aware that the redress and compensation is confined to what is possible now. But what it seeks from claimants is not a recognition of that—that this compensation is what is possible here and now—but that the claimants give up their claims for ever as far into the future as anyone can see and will never enter into further discussions concerns or investigation into this particular set of compensation. So the Crown is essentially establishing for itself its own rules about what it is prepared to do at this particular time but is requiring that a different set of rules be followed by these claimants who are prevented from ever entering into any further negotiation on these particular claims. 
We consider that to be a serious issue. We consider it to be part of a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and a clear indication that the Crown is not committed to the ongoing resolution of treaty settlements and treaty claims. That provision is not about developing a long-term relationship where there is open discussion about the validity of the issues raised and the level of compensation provided. As we have raised before the issues raised in terms of clauses 15 and 16 are particularly important for Tangahoe and Pakakohi because they will never be able to come back and have another look at this legislation and readdress the issues that they have raised very seriously through the courts and in the Maori Affairs Committee. For them these clauses essentially legislate them out of existence—legislate away their rights as Maori under the treaty to be able to get the redress that they believe is imperative for them. 
So the Greens consider the effect of this legislation to be extremely serious for Tangahoe and Pakakohi and to that end we have put forward amendments to delete clauses 15 and 16 of the bill. We are aware of the constraints on amendments to the bill particularly as it is a treaty settlement bill and we are aware that those amendments may not go any further than the Committee stage. But we have put them forward out of respect to Tangahoe and Pakakohi out of recognition that these claims are not in any sense final but will continue to live on because this process creates a further injustice that must and will be dealt with in the future and out of recognition that these clauses are a complete anathema to the passing of good legislation in this Chamber. It is important for us to stake a claim now in order to make it clear that this Parliament recognises and understands the importance of what it is doing in legislating away these people’s rights into the future and preventing them from ever being able to reconsider the compensation—compensation that the Crown accepts is acceptable only in so far as its resources are currently available. It is important to recognise as well for the benefit of those people who will look back on this debate and want to see what we were thinking at the time that we do understand the consequences of legislating a settlement that will be closed off to future generations. 
I urge members to support the amendments to the bill. We will certainly be voting in favour of them. We will vote for the bill regardless of whether those amendments go through out of respect for Ngati Ruanui. But as an indication of the importance of understanding and acknowledging the injustice that those clauses will cause we strongly urge members to vote to delete them from the bill. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I was not thinking of participating in this Committee stage but I do so to say that the ACT party most certainly will not support the Greens’ suggestions that this is not a full and final settlement. I tell the previous National speaker that it is a fond hope that it is a full and final settlement. The reason I say that is that for parts of the land involved this is the fourth settlement. I know it is fashionable to say that our predecessors never tried to settle anything. That is just not true. Parliament itself passed settlement Acts that in today’s dollars were more generous than what we are doing today. Three different commissions have been involved—two in the 1880s and one the Sim Commission in the 1820s. If members read the reports of those commissions they will find they are a great deal better than those of the Waitangi Tribunal which has that caused a great deal of offence by rewriting history and describing things as a holocaust. Well it is regrettable. What happened was wrong but it was not a holocaust. In that sense I tell the member from the Green Party that I think the bulk of New Zealanders both Maori and non-Maori do want to settle Waitangi claims. They do want to put those things—to use Helen Clark’s favourite phrase—behind us and move on. In doing so the ACT party supports this bill even though it has some reservations about the process that has been gone through. We too would like to see reconciliation in Taranaki. 
It is regrettable that the Minister has not taken a call to assure the Committee that in fact the settlement is fair and that those Maori groups that have complained have been treated correctly. I was not a member of the Maori Affairs Committee but I would have expected the Minister on an important treaty claim to address those issues and answer them. I notice that the Greens put in a minority report on that matter then basically did not speak to it. 
Hon Member 
: Yes we did. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No the Greens did not speak to the question of whether they thought the objections being raised by hapu in Taranaki do have merit. In fact what the Greens appear to me to be saying is the worst sort of politics. They just wave a green flag at it without making a decision one way or another. I tell the Minister that I am relying on the committee and the Crown to have acted properly because my party was not represented on the select committee. I would like to hear an assurance from the Minister in this Committee that this is a fair settlement a full settlement and a final settlement. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I have a lot of difficulty in understanding the Greens’ position. It seems to me that I hear a lot of problems from them and not too much in the way of solutions. The question is: how long do we as a nation—that is Maori as well as non-Maori—really want the treaty settlement process to continue? How long do we want to keep on debating treaty grievances before we move on as a nation having put that part of our history behind us once and for all? I find extreme difficulty with the proposed amendment that would make the settlement not a full and final settlement. That simply says for us to give them some money now and in fact invite them to come back again and ask for more. I think it is in everybody’s interests that we to try to get these proceedings out of the way get a resolution resolve the issues and move on. 
I am aware that there were concerns from Tangahoe and Pakakohi in terms of their legitimate representation. It appears that in all those grievances there will always be a minority view that does not agree with the way the settlement is going to go. In fact in this settlement we have one of the highest proportions of agreement: 87.8 percent of the people including Tangahoe and Pakakohi agreed to the settlement process; 94 percent ratified. It seems to me that we will not get any better than that. To suggest that because there is a small minority—and numerically on those figures it has to be a very small minority—that is not comfortable with the settlement we should therefore allow relitigation of issues by that minority or in fact as the Greens would have it by anybody in Ngati Ruanui at some future stage is simply ridiculous. We need to have a balance. I am also aware of the arguments as to whether it is iwi or hapu that should be negotiated with. The Crown has mandated and there are questions as to whether the Crown should unilaterally mandate and define the groups that will be the negotiating parties as iwi groups or as large natural groups but in practical terms that is probably the one direction in which we can go if we want to try to get the issue resolved. 
My major objection is that despite the need for robust settlements and for full and final settlements the Government is still moving far too slowly in terms of this resolution. It proudly says it will achieve two settlements a year on average. That is simply not good enough. We need to be moving much faster than that. We as a nation need to get to a position where those things are finished and behind us. On the basis of a prediction of about 50 claims to go if we speed up the process—and that is simply a question of resources available to the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements—we could by my calculations get the whole matter finished by 2015. Then we could have a finite date by which we could say we have finally got these issues behind us that Maori have the assets and the potential to be financially self-sufficient in order to move on and have accepted apologies freely given that there has been cultural redress—which I am pleased to see particularly in the form of the protocols in this bill—that there has been material restitution and that all parties are as far as can be conceivably expected happy with the result. We could say that that was behind us and we had coloured in the whole country in terms of the processes of the Office of Treaty Settlements. We could then look forward to a relationship into the future and focus on where we go to from here. 
I am concerned about the issue of where we go to from here because I simply do not see any sense of vision by this Government in terms of where the relationships between Maori and non-Maori will be in 10 15 or 20 years’ time. What does the Government see those as being? We continually get an almost schizophrenic approach to Maori issues which comes from a lack of a sense of moving in any consistent sort of direction. We get an approach that on some issues means we try to get resolution and reconciliation and we try to set up a framework that moves us forward together and the next thing is that the Government turns round and does things are simply divisive. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 105 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 105 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson be agreed to. 
National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill 
In Committee 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There has been a discussion amongst the other whips and it has been agreed that we deal with these clauses in the same way as the previous bill. I seek leave for the debate on the clause to be one wide-ranging debate with the questions being put at the end of that debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are actually debating clauses 1 to 41 and the schedules. I thought we had just agreed on a wide-ranging debate over all the parts and the schedules. 
Clauses 1 to 41 and schedules 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 It is with great interest that I stand on behalf of the National Party to speak in favour of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill. We would like for once to commend the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs for the work she has done on this bill but—not to go too far—we still have a few questions. Sometimes we have to give credit where credit is due. I have done a lot of work on broadcasting with the Minister and sometimes one has to say a kind word or two. I thank her. However in terms of the bill I do have a few questions and concerns. 
First why do we need this legislation at all? We have a perfectly good National Library Act enacted in 1965 that has done an extremely good job for the last 38 years. Passing bills in this House is a very expensive task. The Parliamentary Library tells me that it can cost anywhere from between $300000 and $800000 to pass a bill so we should not pass bills just to make ourselves feel good. I question the reasons behind the Government wanting to pass this one. I suspect it has a lot to do with wanting to do symbolic things to make the arts community feel good. Having looked at this bill of some 29 pages I cannot see any legitimate reason that we should be spending time on it tonight. 
 Things have changed quite dramatically since 1965. Technology has changed. In 1965 some members were not even born. There were no fax machines no colour television and certainly no video. 
Simon Power 
: Ray Columbus was popular. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I thank Mr Power. Ray Columbus was popular. We did not have the Internet. A lot of the changes to the publishing world have been made since that time and a lot of the bits and pieces that need to be protected within the National Library need to be incorporated within the Act. However we could have done that with an amendment. We did not need a whole new bill. 
I ask the Minister why we are going through this process of establishing a totally new bill and repealing the old Act. I would like her to explain why this is nothing more than perhaps some artistic symbolism and some feel-good legislation. A few excuses were dreamt up about why this bill needed to be put through. The first one was to clarify the role of the Alexander Turnbull Library. It is a very important part of the library with a very important collection. I say “important” but I mean important to the New Zealand culture and the heritage of this country. But once again we did not really need another bill to tell us how important it was. The Alexander Turnbull Library sits there in the middle of the National Library its premises quite separate from the rest of the complex. We do not need a bill to go as far as clarifying the role further. 
The second excuse was to clarify the role of the chief librarian which some would have us believe seems to be one of the most political jobs in Wellington. However once again no real change is necessary. This bill will introduce a whole new range of problems. For example it includes the word “taonga”. This whole country has had a huge problem in defining what that word means in the treaty. So in terms of including it in further legislation when the whole country is not quite sure what the exact meaning of it is right now I certainly have concerns about that. 
The next point I would like to raise is the extended coverage of legal deposit. If we look at what this bill covers we will see that it covers all sorts of things that now need to be deposited with the National Library. Almanacs annual reports books pamphlets—for some reason press releases are not included—newsletters and web pages will be captured. Certainly those people involved in the computer industry are very concerned. They are unclear what will be required of them in offering some of their materials to the National Library and of course technology changes. Years ago in the 1980s I remember using WordStar as a file format. These days we would be lucky to find a computer able to read that. These sorts of technological changes have an impact on how we preserve parts of our heritage. 
Another quite interesting point is that under the Supplementary Order Paper the words “art print” have been removed. I wonder whether that is because there may have been a general concern that the works of Ralph Hotere Stanley Palmer Grahame Sydney or a number of people who specialise in prints were going to have to put their works into the National Library. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Good to see you! 
SIMON POWER 
: I thank the Minister; it is good to be here. I was transferred on to the Education and Science Committee part-way through the hearings of evidence and the work that had been done on the bill. I have to confess that when the matter came up on the select committee business agenda I perhaps did not initially take this bill as seriously as I should have. However when I sat and listened to some of the evidence— 
John Carter 
: Really! 
SIMON POWER 
: This is quite an important point on what is quite an interesting bill. When the evidence came before the select committee and the officials came and spent some time going through the bill with us it became apparent to me that it was an important wee piece of legislation. As we worked through a series of questions with the officials about how the legal depositing would work how modern Internet would be dealt with—particularly from my point of view from a copyright perspective—and how the National Library would control the rights that connect to electronic data that was to be stored by the National Library I found the whole thing surprisingly quite fascinating. 
My colleague Katherine Rich outlined some of the initial views that she had on the bill. Some of those did not resonate with me as much as the issues that relate to legal deposit. There was a whole range of submissions supporting the extension of that deposit to cover electronic publications. At first glance that might seem like a pretty standard uninteresting thing to say. In fact it is an extremely difficult thing to do not only in terms of gathering and maintaining that information not only in terms of the copyright and the legal issues that surround who owns that information but also in the way in which Internet and electronic information can change so quickly. The question for the officials was: “How do we capture a moment in time of that electronic information then commit it to our records to represent that precise moment of information?” It might sound like a bizarre concept but when we talked it through with the officials one thing that became absolutely clear was that this is not a straightforward business. 
My colleague Katherine Rich made the comment that in some places this bill may be unnecessary and perhaps a little repetitive in terms of the practical things that exist. The classic example of that—and I remember questioning the officials on this—was clause 13(1): “There is an office of chief librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library.” To my way of thinking why do we have that in legislation? If there is a chief librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library that is great and that person should be left to just get on with the job. However it was explained to me that it was not that straightforward and that I needed to consider other issues about the relationship that that chief librarian had in relation to the chief librarian of the National Library and other officers who worked in the National Library. 
However I return to what I initially set out to talk about—that is the issue of storing information in an electronic form. Seeing as we have a wide-ranging debate the Minister the Hon Marian Hobbs is in the chair and it seems as though an agreement has been reached to let the Committee rise early once everybody has had a say on this issue I would not mind if the Minister would take a call to give us a bit of view on how the policy process works through that storage at one point in time of any of that information. One thing is for sure that cannot have been a straightforward process. What does one do if a website shows information one day the National Library decides it will store the information as at that date and then the information changes in 24 hours which it does? At which point should the library collect that electronic information at which point is the library able to make a decision as to when that information should be deposited and at which point does it determine when that information is most important? That cannot be an easy problem for the National Library and I wish it well. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of this bill. The two previous speakers made some very good points. When Katherine Rich asked whether this was a feel-good bill she did indeed raise a very valid point. I agree with her that an amendment would have been quite sufficient. We should feel duty-bound to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. How much was it that a bill costs? 
Hon Member 
: Between $300000 and $800000. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is a lot of health care. However here we have the bill and the ACT party supports it. As Mr Power said we have some concerns on the issue of legal deposit for electronic material. I will be putting forward an amendment to ask that the term “restriction” in the interpretation contained in clause 28 should have the following added to it: “means recognition of legal restrictions that already may exist for material on Internet sites.” The reason I want to put this amendment or addition to the clause forward is that I have some concerns with clause 30C(4) which allows the National Library to make content harvested from public websites such as stuff.co.nz or newzealandherald.co.nz available via the Internet. There are two implications from that. The first is that the viability of some publishers of commercial news archives may well be threatened. I would welcome the Minister taking a call and assuring the Committee that that is not the intention of that provision. I am sure that it is not but it would be good to know that was not the case. Many of those organisations survive because they are able to sell their information and it is essential that when the library is asked for that information to be given out the information will be still protected. 
Another concern I have is the requirement for the National Library to gain agreement from affected publishers prior to the library making material available via the Internet. It is legally protected at the moment so not everybody can go in and get the information that members of those publishing organisations have paid considerable amounts of money to be able to access. I think that is a very important point. 
So ACT will be supporting this bill. I would welcome everybody having a look at the amendment I have put forward and I ask that they consider it seriously and support it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am absolutely delighted to be able to speak on this National Library of New Zealand Bill otherwise known as Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa Bill. In saying that I know that it is usual to say something about the title. There was considerable discussion and submission on the title itself. Indeed— 
Sandra Goudie 
: There’s an amendment from me. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Apparently there’s a an amendment but as I say there was considerable submission and discussion on it and concern that there may be a degree of tokenism in the way that Maoridom is being treated in this bill—concern that there is a lack of sensitivity. Nevertheless it is important that there are two names and I am certainly very happy about that because the library is such an icon and because it celebrates all New Zealanders’ archives. Even now I see just in front of me one of my colleagues who is concerned about that aspect. 
National did not support the first reading of this bill but due to the parliamentary process working well and the various parties working cooperatively a consensus was arrived at over some pretty tricky issues. One of them was the area of legal deposit and the commercial problems associated with it. The other concerned the area of the oral archives and I would like to speak to that for a moment or two. 
For some decades oral archives were being collected in New Zealand particularly in relation to our Prime Ministers and Governors-General. I am aware that the former Governor-General Mr Hardie Boys was deeply concerned that the oral histories he was involved with during the MMP era would not be available. The difficulty was that under the Official Information Act there was a possibility that anything said by a Minister or the Governor-General could be available—hence even their private recollections would be available—and many of them did not want that to happen. However through the mechanism in clause 10 we now have an explicit provision so that the wonderful collection started off by Hugo Manson and Judith Fyfe can be recommenced. 
Clause 10(2) states: “If an oral history has been provided to the National Library by a person on conditions (for example conditions relating to access to the information) that have been agreed to in writing by or on behalf of the National Librarian the Crown and its agents … must comply with those conditions.” Clause 10(3) goes on to state: “This section—(a) applies whether or not the oral history was created or acquired by or on behalf of the Crown; and (b) does not limit the Archives Act 1957.” The effect of that is that those very valuable oral histories will be able to be recommenced. That is a great achievement for the future. 
I must say that during the submissions to the bill I was deeply impressed by the incredibly sincere and extremely conscientious views aired by the submitters. There is something about librarians—and I think there might be a few up in the gallery tonight—but I certainly pay tribute to their extraordinary zeal towards this wonderful institute the National Library. It was a great learning exercise to have their contributions. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Members are aware that the Hon Brian Donnelly chaired the Education and Science Committee and that New Zealand First has supported this bill in its first and second readings and now in its Committee stage. 
Just very quickly and rather than prolong the debate I say that this is quite a significant bill for another reason. I am used to looking at bills that mention the Treaty of Waitangi and somehow their purpose clauses go down a particular track. New Zealand First often finds it difficult to distinguish why and how legal language and terminology can go down that path. But this bill has a sensible purpose clause. Firstly it picks up the reality which is the historical heritage of our country. It puts that into a concise form and recognises that heritage is not just for Maori but it is for all of us. I think that is quite a significant issue in this clause. 
Secondly I am very pleased to see that it picks up the oral history which is part of the university of this town and part of a development that has been interesting and ought to be more so. It is a very easy and concise way of preserving part of our heritage in a way that is easier to put together than is the more traditional writing and so on that we normally accept in historical scholarship. 
Thirdly I want to add one other matter. I understand there was some concern—and I would wish the Minister if she were to take a call to clarify the one issue outstanding—about the state of information received electronically with regard to its republication. 
The only issue of some contention to us as a caucus is the status under this bill of electronic material stored and republished. I do not think that issue has been quite clarified. I have searched through the language and it is not clear to me. That would be the only quibble we would ask the Minister to clarify. New Zealand First supports the further passage of this bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to reiterate National’s full support for the National Library and for the Alexander Turnbull Library and acknowledge their wonderful contribution as repositories of our history and as collectors of what will be our history in all the materials they put out. 
I would like to cover one or two aspects of the bill that I have noticed on a first reading because I have not been very familiar with it. I have put an amendment forward on the title of the bill. The title is the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill and my amendment excludes the Maori words for a very good reason—the reason of cost. When one is looking to use words in titles and on letterheads there is a compliance cost that goes with that. There is no compliance cost with this bill but there is a compliance cost from this bill not just for the private sector but also for taxpayers through the public sector. So I think it is absolutely sufficient to entitle the bill the “National Library of New Zealand Bill”. The “National Library” means it is for the nation for the peoples of the nation and for the peoples of New Zealand. So the title “National Library of New Zealand Bill” is absolutely appropriate. If further thought were given to the cost of having all those words in the current title there would be some reconsideration given to this. There is no compliance cost report attached to this bill and this is the second bill I have had to speak on in as many weeks that has not had a compliance cost report. That is a serious oversight on the part of this Government and a measure of its lack of fiscal capability in that regard. 
I point out another couple of areas that could have been considered in a compliance cost report. Firstly there is the provision of guardians or kaitiaki as inserted in the bill; and secondly there is the provision for a commission as well as other advisory bodies. I struggle to understand why it is necessary to have a committee called “Guardians” as well as a commission and then supplement that with a number of advisory bodies. There is a considerable cost attached and I would have thought that needed to be assessed as to whether it is absolutely justified when perhaps just the commission is necessary in providing any advice sought and in working with the National Librarian of the National Library who is also responsible for the rest of the functions of the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library. I would have thought that the responsibility of the chief librarian should be left with the chief librarian and perhaps not taken away by means of a committee of guardians but instead left to the commission. I would have thought it was not necessary to have any other advisory bodies whereby there is no control over how many of them are going to be considered. 
I support my learned colleague Paul Hutchison in his recognition of the great importance of oral histories. It is good to see that provision and that those histories are subject to the Archives Act. 
However it makes no recognition other than that the Act provides for the Minister to have discretion as to when these oral histories will be released. But it is difficult to know when they will be released given that conditions may be imposed by the person lodging those histories. 
I turn now to subpart 3 of Part 2 “Guardians of Alexander Turnbull Library” which provides that the Minister of Maori Affairs must be consulted in the appointment of guardians. I do not see any justification or reasoning for that necessity. It is a duplication of process and more bureaucratic overlay without just cause. I think that provision should be deleted but I have not got around to putting in an amendment. However I am sure I will if I get the opportunity. 
I refer now to the interpretation of Internet documents and the collection of information. We have seen a huge plethora of information since the definition has been broadened. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for the National Library) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of queries that have been raised. I refer firstly to part of the title being in te reo Maori. Those words are not just an addition; this is the name that was given to the library in 1987. It is already on all our publications and papers so to take it out would be a cost. That would really affect it so it is not about saving money. Some people did think that using Maori terms and a Maori name in the title was a bit of icing on the cake. In fact it is significant that the library has been working very hard in recent years with Te Atiawa Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Toa and with their records and history incorporating them and using them in the library. 
Secondly I want to talk about Heather Roy’s amendment about selling electronic information. Yes the newspaper publishers did voice concerns to the select committee. Can I make it very clear that the amendments in the select committee strengthened the situation. There must be consultation with affected publishers before any materials electronic or otherwise not already collected are required and this consultation includes terms of conditions and public access. Those publishers were concerned that we would take “Stuff” in literally and publish it the same day. No that is not so. 
Thirdly I turn to the question raised by the speaker who referred to a “snapshot of electronic data”. Many things that are kept in Alexander Turnbull Library are snapshots literally. They are photos. They are not necessarily photos that say they are true because anyone can doctor a photo. When one takes a snapshot with electronic data what might be on somebody’s website is true for that day but it may not be true for the next day. That is the nature of historical collections. I thank members for their support for this bill. There has been a tremendous amount of work from a community of people. 
One member said: “Why are we bringing the bill in? Why don’t we just amend the Act?”. I think some people were not aware of the discord in the community over a number of years and of the work done outside this Chamber by people like Lydia Weavers—who I see in the gallery—by the library staff and community and by the Friends of the Turnbull Library to heal the wounds of a divided library community. That is why this has been done. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I reiterate United Future’s support for the bill but want briefly to address the words in the title “National Library”. When speaking in the second reading debate my colleague Bernie Ogilvy expressed the concern of our party that the National Library is becoming the “library of last resort”. When most people want to access a library they go to their local public library or to an institutional library to which they are affiliated. Thus most people’s physical perception of a library is grounded in their own local area. Moreover the total budgets and resources of these local libraries far outstrip those of the National Library and these libraries make their own decisions on how their funds should be used. Perhaps on both counts that is as it should be. It would be disastrous to maintain an oversized National Library in Wellington at the expense of those libraries in the rest of New Zealand and I could add also at the expense of the general taxpayer. However I think there has been a perception in the past that the National Library should fill a kind of “mother of all libraries” role. That ignores the reality of the electronic age because libraries across the country can access both national and international information at a keystroke. 
So how will the National Library remain a national library in that sense? One issue is covered in the bill whereby the requirement of “legal deposit” is extended to electronic documents. Although United Future has its doubts about the feasibility of that task we recognise that for those who live in the far-flung regions of this country beyond practical access to local libraries resources such as a national database of electronic and non-electronic documents accessible via the Internet have the potential to be incredibly valuable. Once again that database could be viewed as an information source of last resort but the right of access to a library for people in those circumstances should be equal to the right of any other citizen. To this extent it is still a national library. 
But to avoid being viewed as a default library the National Library of New Zealand also needs to reinvent itself. It is the only place where all New Zealand publications may be found—something that is endorsed in this bill. Yet we should not come to treat it as a place where treasures are contained but never see the light of day. The cornucopia could easily become a mausoleum. That was the tenor of some of the submissions regarding the clarification of the relationship between the Alexander Turnbull Library and the National Library and some submitters were concerned that access to rare and historical material would be restricted. The bill ensures that the holdings of the Alexander Turnbull Library are secure and able to be loaned—provisions that are welcomed. 
But the general issue remains. For it to be a true national library as the title of the bill affirms there needs to be a much greater effort to share the treasures inside with the rest of the country. That is the real challenge facing the National Library but perhaps it is one that goes beyond the relatively constrained parameters of this bill. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I am glad to take a second call in this debate. Because it is a wide-ranging debate I would like to take the opportunity to thank those members of the National Library staff who have been involved in taking the bill this far and once again to pay tribute to Lydia Weavers. I was a trustee on the National Library for a period of time and I saw at first hand the skill and dedication of Lydia Weavers and the meticulous approach she took to ensuring that the Alexander Turnbull Library and the trustees could put their best foot forward. I suppose that part of her work was planning the demise of the trustees—as they will now be broken into the guardians and the commission—but I think she needs to be recognised for a job well done. 
I still have a few questions remaining about this bill which the Minister has not covered. I do not think she has quite covered the issue of how different formats will be dealt with when it comes to dealing with a wide range of electronic media. The materials that will perhaps come from the 1980s from the 1990s and from more recently will have to be stored in such a way they can be retrieved easily. In my last speech I gave an example of some of the files we used when the use of computers was becoming widespread in the 1980s. Some of those documents we wrote at the time would not be accessible these days unless we had the software the machinery and the whole bit in order to be able to retrieve that information. 
It is good to see a number of members taking calls on this bill. Although the bill seems quite technical in nature it really highlights the importance of the National Library. When I first became a member in 1999 I was very lucky to be given the spokesmanship for the National Library. One of the first things I did was go to the National Library and take a tour. That was an absolute eye-opener and in a way I think I became a born-again National Library convert. The library staff arranged quite a creative tour. They showed me a lot of things that I suspect they knew I would have an interest in so I looked at old music memorabilia posters old political pamphlets—you name it. It was quite amazing to see what is kept in the Alexander Turnbull Library as well as in the National Library as a whole. 
I think it is a good reminder to all of us that the whole point of keeping documents and parts of our heritage is not so much keeping them for their own sake. They are kept so that they can be enjoyed by the entire New Zealand community so that they can be used as the basis for research and so that following generations will be able to learn a little bit about the generations that have gone before. That is why we keep the memorabilia old copies of the  
New Zealand Woman’s Weekly 
 and all sorts of things that document different parts of our heritage. 
But in keeping that material it is important to be able to disseminate it and to use and spread knowledge of that material throughout the community. One of the things that did concern me when I first looked at the bill was clause 11(3) which states: “Except to the extent provided by section 14A the collections of the Alexander Turnbull Library must remain in the custody of the National Library at all times.” The unintended consequence of that clause was to ensure that nothing could leave the library—ever. 
I think one of the good things about the library is that materials can be drawn from its collections and used in other presentations and exhibitions for example Sophie Jerram’s  
Posted Love 
 exhibition. Ms Jerram took a whole range of love letters from the last 100 or so years and put them all together in an exhibition that travelled up and down the country. It came to Dunedin. I am glad to see that the select committee realised that clause 11 as it was would be overly restrictive. It would not allow those sorts of exhibitions to travel. The Jack Lovelock exhibition was another one that would not have been able to travel had all the materials been kept within just the Alexander Turnbull Library and the National Library at all times. 
I am interested in the role of the guardians. I am not 100 percent sure what their role will be. In the way they are described in this bill they sound a bit like glamorised security guards and protectors of the collections. I would like to see a better explanation of what is expected of them and what they will be doing in terms of their protection of the Alexander Turnbull Library. The reason for that of course is to be able to measure what they do and to be able to judge whether parts of the bill have been put in place correctly. 
I also make that point about the commission. I think there needs to be a clearer definition of its role so that all people involved in the library and the public at large can be aware that things are being done well. 
Once again I say that this is an important bill. Although sometimes people look upon libraries as not being as exciting as they should be when we get in amongst them we find they are a repository of knowledge. They are exciting places. The National Library is particularly exciting when we go in and see a lot of the photos posters and snapshots of the past. I think there is an opportunity for us to begin to understand a lot about ourselves as people of a country and about the generations that have gone before. I think it is timely that electronic aspects have been brought into the bill. I have some concerns about formatting and storage and I am a bit unsure about what exactly will be collected because by the way this bill reads everything from Wayne Mapp’s newsletter down to the National Party’s web page will be captured. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s not going to be stored in the National Library is it? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Absolutely! Technically according to this bill Wayne Mapp is a printer and publisher and he will have to forward his newsletter. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What about  
Collins Comments 
? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That goes for  
Collins Comments 
 and also for  
mccully.co 
. I think the worldwide headquarters of  
mccully.co 
 will be appalled to know that its newsletter will have to be submitted on a weekly basis for the purpose of preserving the heritage of this country. 
Once again I thank the staff of the National Library. I will leave it there except to say that National will be supporting this bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I was very interested to hear my colleague talk about those pinnacles of English literature— 
Collins Comments 
 and  
mccully.co 
 etc. However I want to concentrate again on clause 30 and the area of legal deposit because it was that area that we as a party were very concerned about before the bill went to the House then to the select committee and under the very good interparty collaboration in the select committee emerged triumphantly. I just wanted to make the point that it was only in December last year that the  
Dominion Post 
 stated that under New Zealand legal deposit rules publishers already had to provide the library with three copies of any book they published free of charge. The article said that the National Library Bill was set to extend that obligation to cover any type of CD Rom video or other electronic media listed by the Minister and that the National Library would be free to automatically harvest what it wanted from the web. What a great term “harvest” is. The permutations and combinations associated with that term and the changes in technology are absolutely limitless. 
The article went on to state that the National Library had become increasingly strident in its efforts to avoid irrelevance in the face of an explosion of online information and was also set to win the right to convert deposited books into electronic form. It then went on to say that the Newspaper Publishers Association had said that the bill gave the responsible Minister too much discretion to decide what was and what was not a public document and could impose significant costs on publishers. The Minister Marian Hobbs is in the chair and I would ask her to elucidate a few aspects of that issue. 
Interestingly the reply from the Chief Librarian to that article was fairly succinct and she put our concerns to rest. [ 
Interruption 
] No she did not use those terms Mr Carter. She said: “The bill gives the National Library the ability to harvest and make available web content that is already accessible without restrictions. However the National Library would protect the commercial interests of publishers.” That is absolutely vital. Web content that generates revenue—for example a searchable database and other subscriber-based services would be made publicly available only if publishers agreed. That is utterly key. I would certainly like the Minister to just take a small call to assure the Committee that that aspect is absolutely watertight because nothing would be worse than finding in the future that those commercial interests were lost. 
The Chief Librarian then went on to say: “It is incorrect to say that the library is set to win the right to convert deposited books into electronic format. Books that the library receives in hard copy format can’t be converted into electronic format except under the terms of the Copyright Act 1994. The National Library bill proposes no change to that.” So might the Minister be able to tell us that that is absolutely watertight? 
The other point I want to make is that in clause 30(3) there is something that gives me a bit of trepidation. It says: “The Minister may by notice in the  
Gazette 
 authorise the National Librarian to make a copy at any time or times and at his or her discretion of public documents that are internet documents in accordance with any terms and conditions as to format public access or other matters that are specified in the notice.” That provision really gives the Minister carte blanche. She may authorise the gazetting of anything that takes her fancy. 
To my mind one of the greatest worries about the Internet today is deciphering quality from the absolutely unmitigated conglomeration of explosive verbiage that comes across it. It requires huge skills of discrimination. Again I would like the Minister to take a call and absolutely assure the Committee that successive Ministers are likely to be discriminating in terms of that particular clause because it gives a Minister huge possibilities and licence. 
I want to end by just saying that this is indeed a great moment in terms of celebrating a very important New Zealand institution—the National Library of New Zealand. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Heather Roy to clause 28 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by adding to the definition of  
restriction 
 the following paragraph: 
(c)means recognition of legal restrictions that already may exist for material on internet sites. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 and the following amendments in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (3) of clause 9 by inserting before the word “ownership” the word “the”; and 
to omit from the heading of clause 23 the word “Functions” and substitute the word “Function”; and 
to omit from subclause (1) of clause 23 the words “functions of the Commission are” and substitute the words “function of the Commission is”. 
Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) 
In Committee 
Clause 1Title 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I move 
 That the Committee report progress. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 8.48 p.m.