Volume 632 Week 21 - Thursday 27 July 2006 
Volume 632 Week 21 - Thursday 27 July 2006 
[Volume:632;Page:4481] 
Thursday 27 July 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the third reading of the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill including the second reading of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill which is a 3-hour debate. I notice also that on the Table of the House there is a motion of no confidence in the Speaker moved by Dr Donald Brash. I will discuss with Mr Brownlee and other parties later whether and when time should be set aside to discuss that motion. For the information of the House I say that the last time such a motion was accepted for debate was I think in 1985 when it was taken in conjunction with the general debate. Of course being a member’s motion it does not necessarily automatically come up for debate. Also next week we are looking to deal with the remaining stages of the Coroners Bill the Meat Board Amendment Bill the Standards and Conformance Bill and the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. The maiden statement of Charles Chauvel will take place at 5 30 p.m. on Tuesday 1 August. A State lunch will be held on Wednesday 2 August for the retiring Governor-General. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister “shadow” Leader of the House could give us an indication at this point whether his comments relating to a notice of motion that may appear on the Order Paper next week indicate a willingness to debate that topic. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am perfectly prepared to offer the member two options. The first is to find some time for debate next week perhaps in conjunction with the general debate which is what was done in 1985. Alternatively the motion could be moved forthwith without debate. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As the Leader of the House has just indicated I have this morning lodged with the Clerk’s Office a notice of motion which under normal circumstances would appear on the Order Paper on Tuesday. However I seek leave to move that motion forthwith. The motion reads: “That this House has no confidence in the Speaker given her ruling in the matter of privilege made out against Taito Phillip Field for the reasons that having been given the responsibility of exercising the very wide discretion under Standing Order 399 of determining matters that should be referred to the Privileges Committee of this Parliament she has chosen to exercise that discretion in such a narrow legalistic and technical manner as to make it impossible for the Privileges Committee to ascertain the truth regarding the allegations against Taito Phillip Field or to uphold and protect the standards and reputation of this Parliament.” 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Is the member seeking leave to move that motion forthwith without debate or with it? If it is without debate I would have no objection; if it is with debate the Government does have other business including the first reading of a Treaty settlement bill that it wishes to deal with this afternoon. I would be happy to take the motion without debate. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a minor technical point but there is something wrong with the volume of the sound down this end of the Chamber. We can hardly hear what is going on. This is an important issue so perhaps that could be attended to. For instance Dr Brash does not have a very soft voice but I could hardly hear the motion he read out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would ask those who attend to those matters to check and if we all talk directly into our microphones it might also help. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 In response to the Leader of the House I say that this is clearly a very serious matter and I would think it quite inappropriate to vote on it without appropriate debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In line with what I indicated about the state luncheon next Wednesday I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 2 August. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Taito Phillip Field—Work Permits 
1. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What did the Associate Minister’s office decide at the meeting with Taito Phillip Field on 17 May 2005 with respect to the issuing of work permits for Mr Sunan Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that no decisions were made with respect to those cases at that meeting. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Associate Minister’s office not act to correct Taito Phillip Field’s misrepresentation of the outcome of the meeting on 17 May when he wrote to the Minister the following day stating: “As a result of my representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan you have decided that you will consider favourably a 2-year work permit to allow him to re-enter New Zealand from Apia.” if that decision was not made at that meeting on 17 May? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do not hold any information on that matter. But I would say that Ministers receive thousands of pieces of correspondence and if that member would like me to trawl through his correspondence file to see whether he has responded to all of his I would be very happy to do so. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member does not have a quiet voice. I have my head towards the receiver and I am having trouble hearing him. I am sure members opposite cannot hear him at all. Madam Speaker I was listening for a short time to the radio yesterday and had much difficulty in hearing members who were speaking. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Of all people. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I certainly could not— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While I was on my feet for a point of order Gerry Brownlee interjected. Normally that results in ejection from the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I certainly could not hear the Minister’s answer either. I ask members to restrain themselves so that both those in the Chamber and those who are listening to proceedings can hear the questions and the answers. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Associate Minister’s office not act to correct Taito Phillip Field’s misrepresentation of the outcome of the meeting on 17 May when the following day he wrote to the Minister stating: “You further decided that a special direction will be granted to cancel the 5-year penalty for his spouse.” if that decision was not made at that meeting on 17 May 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I suggest the member reads the Ingram report which states at paragraph 140 that “a direction was given by Mr O’Connor on 17 June 2005.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Associate Minister’s office not act to correct Taito Phillip Field’s misrepresentation of the outcome of the meeting on 17 May 2005 when he wrote to the Minister the following day: “You further decided you would allow the reunification of this family in New Zealand by granting 2-year work permits for both Mr Siriwan and Ms Aumporn Phanngarm.” if that decision was not made at the meeting on 17 May 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Further to paragraph 140 of the Ingram report which states that a direction— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have listened to the Minister’s answers very carefully. For the first three questions from my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith on this issue he said he was not responsible for the Ingram report and refused to answer any questions on it. I am interested to hear that today he refuses to answer every question asked by my colleague Lockwood Smith and quotes a report that he told us earlier he was not responsible for. I simply ask you to get him to address the member’s question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is addressing the question. Could he continue to give his answer please. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Further to paragraph 140 of the Ingram report which states—[ 
Interruption 
] I am responsible as I believe your rulings have clarified— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please. It is impossible to hear the Minister. There is no point in him even attempting to address the question if no one can hear him. Would the Minister please continue. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Minister of Immigration as has been established is responsible for the processes of immigration decision-making. The Minister is not responsible for the conduct of the Ingram report but in this case the Ingram report has already answered the question raised by the member’s colleague. I suggest he reads it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that when Mrs Field went into the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service in Samoa on 8 June 2005 waving about her husband’s letter claiming the Associate Minister had made certain decisions the manager of the Apia office emailed the immigration intelligence unit in Wellington and a senior Department of Labour official phoned the Minister’s office on the same day passing on that information; if no decisions had been made at that critical meeting on 17 May why did the Minister’s office not act on that information from Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I believe we traversed yesterday that the Ingram report concludes the most likely scenario is that the Minister was not informed of the department’s concerns on 17 June when he made his decision. I remind all members that discretions are properly exercised by Ministers in favour of representations from all sides of the House on the basis of the best available information before them at the time. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When his department’s briefing notes prepared on 16 June 2005 for the Minister to make his decision with respect to Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm stated: “Normally the advice tendered in this case would be to maintain the Associate Minister’s non-intervention stance. However if Mr Field’s account of his discussion with the Associate Minister is correct and accurate the Minister may wish to intervene.” can any other conclusion be drawn than the fact that Mr Field’s misrepresentation of the meeting on 17 May actually influenced improperly his department’s advice to the Associate Minister? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can conclude from the question that the member has misunderstood the word “if”. 
Heather Roy 
: Has the Minister personally reviewed the file—including the correspondence with Taito Phillip Field—from Mr Sunan Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm; if not why not and if so did he have any concerns regarding the management of this case? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As Minister I have—of course—considered carefully the Ingram report and I have looked at least at some documents in that file. But I repeat that it is not proper for a Minister to revisit the properly made discretionary decisions of former Ministers. Otherwise how far back should one go? 
Campylobacter—Poultry Contamination 
2.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Is she concerned that public health researchers estimate that contaminated chicken is likely to be causing at least 50000 cases of campylobacter infection each year and more than 400 hospitalisations; if so does she support their call to immediately switch to frozen poultry and seriously consider banning the sale of fresh chicken for human consumption? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Food Safety 
: Yes. She has asked the New Zealand Food Safety Authority to provide her with information regarding action that is being taken—and it should be taken through the whole farm to supermarket to plate continuum—and she is expecting advice on that very soon. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why will the Government not recommend switching to frozen chicken when all of the modelling shows that it would reduce tenfold to hundredfold campylobacter contamination of chicken and how many more New Zealanders will have to become ill before the Government will take decisive action to reduce this entirely preventable epidemic? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is taking an evidence-based approach on this and that is why the Minister has asked for advice on the range of actions that might be taken. It is important to note that people should not be left with the impression as the member’s question might imply that frozen chicken is automatically safe. Campylobacter survives freezing which does not destroy all—[ 
Interruption 
] It depends what one is doing with the frozen chicken of course Ms Bennett; in your case I am not sure! In the case of frozen chicken about 10 percent of campylobacter survives and when the chicken unfreezes there are risks in terms of how to treat the fluids at that point. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree with scientists that the only way of getting rid of campylobacter in a kitchen is to disinfect everything with a chlorine bleach; if so why is she allowing the Food Safety Authority to give false reassurance to the public by saying that washing one’s hands boards and utensils with soapy water will get rid of the bacteria? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have evidence in front of me to suggest that chlorine bleach is the only way of approaching the matter. Of course chlorine bleach presents its own health problems if not handled correctly. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree with the public health researcher Dr Nick Wilson that fresh chicken is literally dripping with campylobacter that “everything it touches” can become cross-contaminated and that blaming the public for not handling poultry properly is like blaming a consumer who finds half a mouse in a meat pie; why therefore does the Food Safety Authority continue to focus on blaming the epidemic on consumers instead of reducing contamination at source in the slaughterhouses of New Zealand which as its own research has found are a major source of cross-contamination? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly there are serious risks here which is why the advice is to handle chicken extremely carefully; obviously people should follow that advice and follow through. But I repeat that the Minister has asked for full advice on the best way to treat this whole issue and is not going to rush into action on the basis of one report. 
Taito Phillip Field—Former Minister's Visit to Samoa 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Why did the former Minister of Immigration visit the house of Taito Phillip Field in Samoa on 18 March 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 According to paragraph 99 of the Ingram report apparently because Mr Field suggested it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did the previous Minister of Immigration meet with any of the Thai immigrants named in the Ingram report during his visit to the house and did he discuss their immigration status with Mr Field at the house? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This is old news; it appeared in the  
New Zealand Herald  
some 10 months ago. Yes they did meet a number of workers on the house. They “shook hands and moved on”. Mr Swain made clear that he had no involvement in the case and had no discussion of immigration matters. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did Mr Keith Williams a personal acquaintance of and contractor employed by Taito Phillip Field in Samoa claim that: “Field had a talk with either Swain or O’Connor at the house” and came back to him when they had left and said that he had had a “word” and that the Thai man should stay out of New Zealand for 3 months and that he would be then granted a work visa for New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Ingram QC describes that claim as entirely implausible. A work visa was never issued. The Thai person concerned never re-entered New Zealand and of course Mr Swain was at Mr Field’s house in the presence of a number of New Zealand police. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister over the last 10 months since this matter first came to light considered how it could be that Mr Siriwan who was denied a work permit in 1997 who had his refugee status application denied in 2002 whose case was considered hopeless by an experienced immigration consultant who had twice been refused ministerial discretion for the issue of a work permit by the Hon Damien O’Connor in October 2004 and March 2005 and who had a partner who was deported from New Zealand with a 5-year ban on returning was suddenly granted a work permit by Mr O’Connor in June of 2005 after the visit to the house by the Hon Paul Swain and the Hon Phil Goff? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Discretion is necessarily broad. It would be about as likely as Dr Wayne Mapp applying for a health waiver for a case where the person had a lifelong debilitating disease. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How could that possibly be an answer? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question—obviously not to the satisfaction of the member but he has an opportunity to ask a supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did the former Minister of Immigration receive any official advice from either New Zealand or Samoan-based Immigration Service staff regarding the use of Thai labour on Mr Phillip Field’s house in Samoa either prior or subsequent to his visit to the house; if so when did he receive that advice? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I clarified to the House on 13 December 2005 the former Minister received no specific advice regarding the case of Mr Siriwan or his wife prior to his visit. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he then accuse immigration officials who spoke to Mr Ingram of lying? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. The Ingram report faithfully reports what officials submitted to Mr Ingram and the report concludes the most likely scenario is that the information was not passed on to Mr O’Connor before he made the decision. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he believe he would be concerned if he had visited Mr Field’s house and seen the Thai workers working on that house; if so what action would he have taken subsequent to such a visit and subsequent to the pressure clearly put on him by Mr Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Ingram report concludes that the exercise of ministerial discretion by Mr O’Connor in this case was properly made in that it was a plausible use of a proper ministerial discretion. I am no more going to revisit the decision of that former Minister’s use of discretion than I would for example that of Sir William Birch or the member for Rodney. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister what he would do in these circumstances. He has completely avoided that question and certainly you could rule that he has addressed it. But I think it is relevant because clearly there are other applications in the pipeline that he may need to consider and I think the House does have a right to know what his own thinking is in these matters. I further point out that Mr Ingram said that Mr O’Connor’s position was “baffling”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member noted the Minister is required to address the question and he did but obviously not to the satisfaction of the member. 
Maori Language—Government Policy 
4.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: He aha i noho ai ko te tautoko i te korerotanga o te reo Maori he kaupapa nui hei whai ma te Kawanatanga? 
[ 
Why has supporting spoken Maori become a major focus for the Government? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
E tohu ana Te Rautaki Reo Maori a te Kawanatanga he reo e korerotia ana he reo ka ora. Na reira matau e whakahangai i a mahi ki te tautoko i tenei whainga. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The Government’s Maori language strategy emphasises that a spoken language is a living language. We have focused our efforts to support this. 
] 
Shane Jones 
: He aha ke nga mahi e kokiritia ana hei tautoko i te wiki o te Reo Maori? What initiatives are under way to support Maori Language Week? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Kia ora. He whanui tonu nga momo mahi e kokiritia a matou o te Kawanatanga. E tu kaha a muri a te Kohanga Reo e tu kaha a muri a nga take Maori e kare e mohio take noa. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please! 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is about the absolute rudeness from the National back bench. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it was noticed and unnecessary. Of course members can interject but I ask them to use some decorum. I ask the Minister to repeat his answer then we will have the translation. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: He whanui tonu nga momo mahi e kokiritia ana ki te tautoko i te Wiki o te Reo Maori ara hei tauira: ki te tu kaha ake ano te Kawanatanga a muri a Te Kohanga Reo kei te tu kaha ake ano te Kawanatanga a muri a nga take Maori e kare e mohio ake ano wetahi e mau koretake mo te reo. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
A 
 wide range of initiatives is under way to support Maori Language Week—for example those te kohanga reo initiatives fully supported by the Government those relating to Maoridom as well as those who are wanting in the language. 
] 
Taito Phillip Field—Ministerial Discretion 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence that ministerial discretion was exercised appropriately in the case of Mr Sunan Siriwan? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Ingram report describes the decision as “a justifiable exercise of that broad discretionary statutory power.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Associate Minister grant Sunan Siriwan a work visa for New Zealand in part to reunite him with his child as he suggested in the House yesterday when that child had been living in Thailand and was at the time the special direction to grant a work visa was given already living with Mr Siriwan in Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Those matters have already been traversed in the Ingram report. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister please sit down until we have sufficient quiet to hear the answer. [ 
Interruption 
] Members do not want to hear the answer so we will move on to another supplementary question. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister was asked a straightforward question and is totally failing to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister was not given an opportunity to answer the question. I ask for some silence so that the Minister can have an opportunity to answer it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Once again I refer members to paragraph 179 of the report which states that it was “a justifiable exercise of … [a] broad discretionary statutory power.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleague Dr Nick Smith raised the issue before. This Minister dodged questions all of last week by saying he would not talk about the Ingram report. So we have couched our questions today to go right to the heart of matters he is responsible for as a Minister. They are matters pertaining to his department and it is extremely irksome that he now chooses to hide his inefficiency as a Minister behind various paragraphs in the Ingram report. The fact is that there are answers required of him as a Minister that Mr Ingram clearly could not get to and he needs to give them to the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Last week the Minister quite rightly pointed out that he was not responsible for the production of the Ingram report. Of course the Minister responsible for that was the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister commissioned the report. You Madam Speaker quite rightly ruled after points of order from the Opposition that it did not mean the Minister could escape responsibility for matters relating to immigration where they were touched on in the Ingram report. The Minister is perfectly entitled to quote any evidence in answer to a question that is relevant to that question even if he is not responsible for the production of that evidence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that the Minister although not responsible for the report is of course entitled to rely upon it when he is in fact addressing the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am quite happy to complete that answer which is that paragraph 179 of the report concludes that the Minister’s actions may be regarded as “a justifiable exercise of that broad discretionary statutory power.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that when Taito Phillip Field wrote to the Associate Minister of Immigration on 25 February 2005 requesting that Mr Siriwan be granted a work permit his submission argued that such a special direction was required “to allow him to continue working and supporting his child” and is it correct that that letter from Taito Phillip Field failed to advise the Associate Minister that Mr Siriwan’s child was no longer in New Zealand having left the country when his mother was deported earlier that month? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The letter is a matter of record. The point is that the Minister can only rely upon the information put before him at the time. Ministers exercising statutory discretion routinely rely upon the word of members on all sides of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Minister’s office discovered that Taito Phillip Field had misled the Minister with respect to the whereabouts of Mr Siriwan’s child and had failed to advise him that Mr Siriwan was in fact working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa what steps did his department take to check on the 261 other special directions made by the Minister in response to submissions on immigration matters by Taito Phillip Field between January 2003 and October 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do not have that information before me at this time but I will be happy to come back to the member with an answer in writing. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How many of the 262 special directions made by the Associate Minister between January 2003 and October 2005 in response to submissions by Taito Phillip Field have been checked to ensure that no errors of fact or misleading information led to inappropriate decisions by the Associate Minister—decisions that possibly should have been revoked? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do not have that information before me at this time but I can confirm that the Associate Minister continues to receive applications for special directions from members on all sides of the House. This year in particular he has received at least a dozen from the next leader of the National Party. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Historical Grievances Taranaki 
6.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: He aha nga whakanekenekehanga a te Kawanatanga i na noa nei hei whakatutuki i nga kereme raupatu a Taranaki? 
[ 
What recent advances has the Government made towards settling historical Treaty of Waitangi grievances in Taranaki? 
] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I tera atu wiki i tau ai te pire kereme raupatu mo te iwi o Taranaki a Ngati Mutunga ki roto i te Whare nei. Ko tenei te pire tuawha mo nga kereme katoa o Taranaki. He mea nui tena ki a Ngati Mutunga otira he mea nui ano tenei ki te Kawanatanga. No reira me tautoko katoa hoki tatou. Last week the Government introduced the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill the fourth settlement bill to address raupatu claims in Taranaki. The bill is a particularly important milestone in the continuing process of addressing historical claims. I therefore urge members of this House to support it this afternoon at its first reading. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. He korerotanga kei roto i tenei pire ki te Tiriti o Waitangi me nga whakamarama mehemea ae kei te whakakorehia enei tu ahuatanga e te Kawanatanga he aha ranei? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Does the bill make any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; if so does the Government intend to delete them? 
] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: E rua nga patai. Mo te patai tuatahi ae! Mo te patai tuarua kao! There were two questions there. In answer to the first question yes and in answer to the second question no. 
Pita Paraone 
: Has the process towards settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims in Taranaki to date included Mount Taranaki; if not does he know why those settlements already completed have not included the mountain? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: He whakapapa to nga iwi katoa o Taranaki ki te maunga Titohia ki a Taranaki. No reira na runga i tena mohiotanga ka whakaea te Kawanatanga kia waiho ake ena tuahuatanga kia mutu nga kereme katoa. It is a fact that all iwi in Taranaki have an ancestral association to Mount Taranaki. It is therefore prudent to leave negotiations in regard to the mountain until all the iwi of Taranaki are in a position to negotiate. 
Tariana Turia 
: He aha i kore ai nga uri o Taranaki i whiwhi te wariu totika mo nga whenua i murua e te Karauna? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Why are the descendants of Taranaki not receiving the actual value of the lands stolen from them by the Crown? 
] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: He kaupapa ano tera. Kua whakaea hoki te Karauna kore e taea e te Kawanatanga kia whakatikatika i nga ahuatanga katoa e pa ana ki nga kereme mena ka whakatikahia ka kore wenei kereme ki te whakatutuki. It is a very relevant point and the Government has acknowledged that it is not possible to compensate for all land that has been confiscated from all iwi around the country. If we were able to do that I doubt very much whether we would be in a Treaty settlements process at this time. 
Tariana Turia 
: What has been decided on the claims of nga hapu o Nga Ruahine of Taranaki for oil which the Waitangi Tribunal stated was a legitimate claim under the Treaty of Waitangi? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Ki taku mohio kua rirohia ai e te Karauna era ahuatanga i te tau 1938 i raro i te Ture. My understanding is that under the Crown Minerals Act all Maori rights to these natural resources were removed. 
Taxation—Business and Personal Tax Cuts 
7.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does the Government have in mind a range of expenditure it is prepared to commit towards business and personal tax cuts in 2008-09 and in the following 3 years; if so what is this range? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It is too early in the budgetary cycle to be clear about the possible available headroom. 
John Key 
: Is the reason the Minister will not tell us the size of the fiscal headroom because that number will be determined by the polls not by Treasury—a bit like his student loan policy was in the last election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It will in part be determined by one meeting our long-term fiscal objectives and two making sure we provide for essential social services—not three thinking up a number and pretending we can pay for it as that member did with his tax policy. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister give us an example of a successful economy that uses tax incentives as a method of encouragement for exporters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly the Australian economy does for a beginning but so do many economies around the world including of course the United States in a number of different forms. 
John Key 
: Why are potentially billions of dollars worth of business and personal income tax cuts now seemingly affordable when the Minister has spent the last few years telling us they are not and when he has spent the last 9 months since he has been back in office saying that the $360 million of personal income tax thresholds probably are not affordable; is the reason they are now affordable when they seemingly were not before because his idea of affordability is a political concept not an economic one? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No unlike that member whose policy implied raising the level of debt in order to fund current consumption this Government will ensure that its policies can be met while meeting its long-term debt objectives. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a gross misrepresentation of the National Party’s position. There was no suggestion that we would borrow to fund current consumption either in the election campaign last year or subsequently. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Can I treat that as a supplementary question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No would Dr Cullen please complete the answer he started before. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government remains committed to its debt target. As I said the Inland Revenue Department forecasts give some indication of available headroom. Other headroom will become available if we are able to constrain the growth in Government spending. That will be very difficult as I have explained to the member many times. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that the funds available for personal and business tax cuts would have been $360 million more if he had not abandoned the carbon charge and that moves to ecological tax reforms such as charges on pollution waste and the use of scarce resources would further enable income and business tax cuts to proceed while at the same time turning the New Zealand economy in a more sustainable direction? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is unfortunate that the Government is unable to proceed with the carbon tax at this time. Clearly that is lost revenue. For the moment it is not booked fully to account in terms of where the money is going to come from. 
John Key 
: In relation to the Minister’s last answer how would he have a clue what is going to happen to his debt target when he rolls out his theoretical tax cuts because he cannot tell us how big the tax cuts will be he does not know whether they will be business or personal and he cannot tell us whether his indexation is in order—what he can tell us is that he is desperate to keep his job before Trevor snatches it off him so therefore he has been dragged kicking and screaming to the tax cut table? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The only influence in that regard was of course the confidence and supply agreements with United Future and New Zealand First. I hate to tell the member who thinks he is the centre of the universe that he had no impact on this at all. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister of Finance seen any reports of the impact on individuals of alternative taxation proposals? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen a policy document that tells readers to visit the website taxcuts.co.nz. It states that on visiting that website people will receive an alternative tax policy. The website states: “This domain is parked.” It is the National Party’s tax policy and that is it as of this moment. 
John Key 
: The difference between our tax policy and theirs is that we actually deliver one when we say we will—we do not promise it— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I suggest that when a member starts a question with such a long statement the member does not actually get to proceed to ask the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that was not a question. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that New Zealand First wanted the carbon tax dispensed with we wanted the taxation regime as it concerned the racing industry addressed and we wanted the corporate tax situation looked at—and the Government is doing that—and will the Minister confirm that we are over here helping the Government and Opposition members are over there just making a lot of noise? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that the member is over here helping the Government. But I would have to say in all fairness that I wish he had helped us to have the carbon tax. 
John Key 
: Does he agree that what he has been saying about tax cuts in the last couple of days can be summarised like this: tax cuts would have a positive effect on the economy they would help the well-being of New Zealanders and potentially billions of dollars of tax cuts are affordable now—albeit his colleagues would need to show some restraint about future spending proposals—in which case can he confirm that that was National’s policy in the last election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The answer is approximately no no no and no I think to nearly all of those because the National Party proposed a cut only in the corporate tax rate and nothing else for the business sector at all. That was its last priority. Under this Government changes to business taxation in order to grow a bigger cake are the top priority for taxation changes. 
John Key 
: Can he see why people are deeply sceptical about his born-again religious belief in the power of tax cuts to achieve higher productivity growth and incomes when he has spent the last 7 years in the wilderness raising personal tax rates and arguing against a cut in the company tax rate; and can he confirm once again that when it comes to Labour the idea of the affordability of tax cuts or their economic merits has nothing to do with anything other than him keeping his job and being dragged kicking and screaming to the tax cut table? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If spending 7 years on this side of the House is being in the wilderness I leave paradise to the member for indefinite future. 
Algerian Refugee—Costs 
8.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the latest estimate of costs to the Legal Services Agency Crown Law Office and the Ministry of Justice relating to the Ahmed Zaoui case? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House)  
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: Some of these numbers do not lie within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister but he has tried to obtain the figures for the member. In terms of legal aid to the end of June the total was $483744 in legal aid for Mr Zaoui. The Ministry of Justice also administers the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. For the year ended 30 June 2006 that office had incurred roughly $357000 in costs relating to the case. The Minister is advised by the Attorney-General that Crown Law costs to date are $1.273 million. The Minister is also advised that the court costs total is somewhere around $252000. That makes a grand total roughly speaking of about $2.4 million. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those figures and that the review has been deferred delayed or postponed has the Minister estimated what the likely final costs to those agencies will be and has he any advice as to when the rescheduled hearing will take place? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point I understand that the rescheduled hearing is likely to take place early next year. I have no estimate of the final cost but it looks as though it would be at least enough to keep the Overlander running for another couple of years. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a tabulation of the four sets of legal proceedings involving Ahmed Zaoui all of which the Government has lost or has substantively lost and has wasted over $2 million of taxpayers’ money on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a tabulation of the sets of proceedings that the Government has won in the Ahmed Zaoui legal series. It is a paper with nothing on it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision of 1 August 2003 which if the Government had accepted and gone along with it would have saved about $2 million of taxpayers’ money. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a set of tax tables that show what Ahmed Zaoui would be paying in tax if he had been allowed his freedom and to take up a position in Islamic studies at a New Zealand university. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave to table an equally blank document showing the costs that New Zealand would have incurred had Mr Zaoui returned to Algeria when the amnesty was declared. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the Amnesty International report of last month that explains how people in detention in Algeria today are tortured by the security forces and the police. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of the assertions that the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is not adequately resourced; and can he therefore advise whether this issue will be taken care of in order that in January next year when the review is held it will be fair efficient and as transparent as is possibly allowed and effectively will make a final decision? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not aware of those claims. I am aware of claims from Mr Zaoui’s lawyers that delays are entirely the fault of the Crown. That those claims are disingenuous to put it mildly needs to be put on the record I think. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will in its review take proper and detailed cognisance of the judgments made in France Belgium and Switzerland that impacted on Mr Zaoui? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot give that assurance because how the inspector-general deals with the inquiry he is undertaking is entirely a matter for him. It would be quite inappropriate for me to make any comment in that respect. 
Inland Revenue Department—Follow-up of Media Reports 
9.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Does the Inland Revenue Department investigate reports of tax evasion or tax avoidance that are reported in the media? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 The Inland Revenue Department does take into account public information in determining whether any investigation activity is warranted. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would the Inland Revenue Department investigate—to ensure correct tax treatment—a high-profile case of trading in properties such as the purchase by Taito Phillip Field on 6 May 2004 of what appears to be at least his sixth house at 51 Church Street Otahuhu for a price of $259000 and its subsequent sale for $395000 in August 2005? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I refer the member to my original answer. I also remind him that under the Tax Administration Act the discussion or disclosure of any individual’s tax affairs is protected by confidentiality and is certainly not appropriate to canvass in this House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Where the Inland Revenue Department became aware that a taxpayer had claimed to be receiving no rent for a property but was in fact receiving rent for that property—as is the case with Taito Phillip Field and his former property at 51 Church Street Otahuhu—would the department check whether the rent had been accounted for correctly for taxation purposes? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: When the Inland Revenue Department conducts an investigation into matters such as the member has described all aspects will be considered. But I repeat: the tax affairs of any individual are not for disclosure in this House. In fact as Minister I am not made privy to those. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Inland Revenue Department became aware that controversy surrounded the employment of workers such as in the case of the Thai immigrants working on various properties of Taito Phillip Field would the department investigate to check whether either PAYE was properly deducted by the employer or tax returns were properly filed by a contractor; or does his department condone the cash economy that it appears Taito Phillip Field may have been part of? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The Inland Revenue Department certainly does not condone the cash economy. I repeat what I said previously: the tax affairs of individuals are confidential. It is not for me to disclose those. Indeed officials of the department and I are prohibited from doing so by the provisions of the relevant legislation. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Where a public report such as the Ingram report establishes that Taito Phillip Field paid $300 in cash to a Ms Thaivichit for work done on a house he owned at 2A Prangley Avenue Mangere will his department investigate the extent to which Taito Phillip Field’s housing business activities have been conducted in the illegal cash economy; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: At the risk of repetition I give the answer I have given to previous questions: matters relating to the tax affairs of individuals are confidential. 
Information and Communications Technology—Community Capability and Skill 
10.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve capability and skills for communities to use information and communications technology? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 I recently announced 55 successful applicants to the Digital Strategy Community Partnership Fund which is part of the Labour-led Government’s National Digital Strategy. The expanded use of digital technologies is vital to New Zealand’s economic transformation and the community partnership fund will strengthen and better connect our communities. 
Sue Moroney 
: What response has she received from successful applicants to the fund? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: I have met with the New Zealand Spinal Trust in Christchurch which advises that it will use its grant to turn a handbook for spinal injury patients entitled  
Back on Track 
 into an interactive online educational resource about spinal injury. This is an exciting new initiative in which communities and the Government are working together to realise community aspirations through the innovative use of information and communications technology. 
Local and Central Government—Investigation of Cost of Legislation 
11.  
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Will he support and cooperate with the Local Government New Zealand investigation into the extent of costs imposed on local councils by Government legislation? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Local Government 
: The Government will continue to support and cooperate with Local Government New Zealand. 
John Carter 
: Does the Minister know that the passing of legislation by his Government that increases costs on local government is adding to ratepayer hurt? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Let me just correct the record. The House may be interested to know about the issue John Carter is talking about and the 67 Acts he has raised. Our initial analysis is that 26 Acts do not appear to impose any costs on local government; 28 were specifically requested in whole or in part by the local government sector; and a number of the Acts have responded directly to major concerns like the Building Act the Resource Management Act and the Dog Control Act. The member should get his facts right. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What funding has been provided to local authorities by the Government over the last 5 years? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: There is a good story to tell. In fact according to Statistics New Zealand in the year to June 2005 councils received $661.4 million from central government accounting for about 13 percent of council income. That went to extra funding for rates rebate extra funding for new transport extra funding for drinking water schemes and extra funding for water and sewage disposal schemes for small communities. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister give serious consideration to New Zealand First’s call for a properly funded independent commission of inquiry into funding mechanisms for local bodies that will enable members of the public to have input into seeking solutions to the myriad of issues currently confronting the country on this front? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I am informed that there are reports from individual local authorities about this matter and that there may be an investigation of cost pressures faced by local councils. We want to work with local councils not against them. It is important to understand that our relationship with local council is at the forefront of any change in that sector. I understand from the Minister that no formal approach clarifying the issues of cost pressure has currently been received. However if that is a matter brought to his attention he will consider it. 
John Carter 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the level of compliance cost analysis conducted for new legislation affecting local government and did he discuss this with local government; if so why are local councils and their ratepayers becoming increasingly irate at the hurtful costs? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Can I reconfirm that the relationship we enjoy with local government is at the forefront of trying to work with it not against it. In fact at the Local Government New Zealand conference the Prime Minister herself said that through the central government and local forum we have found a way of working together that is task-focused and looks to meet challenges and solve problems. We will continue along that track. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Government scrap GST on rates to ease the burden felt by New Zealand homeowners as this simply equates to a tax— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please start again. If we could just lower the level of intervention please. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Will the Government scrap GST on rates to ease the burden felt by New Zealand homeowners as this simply equates to a tax by central government on a tax imposed by local government or alternatively will the Government lower the rates burden by returning the GST collected to local governments? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question is about GST and I wonder whether the member might not direct it to the leader of United Future who is in fact the Minister of Revenue responsible for the goods and services tax? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We thank the member for his intervention. [ 
Interruption 
] No it is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The question is directed to the Minister of Local Government. Can you explain to me your ruling given that you are very tight to members of the Opposition—unless there is a different set of rules for the Government—that questions need to be within Ministers’ responsibilities. I am not aware that the Minister of Local Government has any responsibility for GST. It is indeed the responsibility of his colleague the Minister of Revenue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I heard the member’s question it did relate to rates which are a local government responsibility. So perhaps we could therefore ask the Minister to address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a bit like ruling that the Minister of Local Government could have a view on the cost of postage because rates demands get sent out in an envelope. I think if Opposition members are constrained to asking questions on a tight frame then so should those who are asking patsy questions of the Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It would be interesting if the members noted that of course this is a matter that had been raised by local government with the Minister of Local Government on any number of occasions. The Minister of Local Government has certainly been competent to respond on behalf of the Government that has a united view on this matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is fair enough. I take the Leader of the House at his word. What is the Minister going to do about the cost of postage? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his intervention but the point is that if the Minister addresses the question in terms of the ministerial responsibility and not that of revenue it will be in order. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The issue of ministerial responsibility is that the Minister of Revenue decides whether GST is applied to an element of spending or not not the Minister of Local Government. The Minister of Local Government cannot change the rate of GST; it is an issue only for the Minister of Revenue. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is not at all true of course. Parliament decides whether GST is applied to rates. It is in the legislation and would require legislation to amend. That legislation could be in the name of the Minister of Local Government Minister of Revenue or indeed the Minister of Finance because policy matters on tax are shared between the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Finance. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The answer to the question is no not to my knowledge. However if the member would like to direct that question to the Minister of Revenue or Minister of Finance I am sure he would receive a response. But there is a good story to tell. The Government has put $50.6 million into the rates rebate scheme and an extra 300000 families from that support. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Did the Minister consider when the Government was writing legislation like the Building Act its cost to an authority like Wellington City Council and the hurtful impact of the $1.7 million extra cost that this Act imposed on its ratepayers or does the Minister not care? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The only response to that particular question is to put it into context. The cost drivers in terms of local authority rates include a number of things: growth in the city—people have to respond to growth—the need for more housing and the need for more homes. In fact local authorities need to make the decisions taking into account all the cost drivers and so they should. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister failed totally to address that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question was addressed at length I thought—probably not to the satisfaction of the member but it was addressed. 
John Carter 
: Does the Minister agree with Local Government New Zealand Vice-President Kerry Prendergast that Labour’s new legislation has placed a huge burden on local councils; if not why has Local Government New Zealand been forced to investigate this growing burden? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The answer to the first part of the question is no. It is hard to reconcile comments like that of Dr Brash that it is his view that New Zealand is currently on the brink of a crisis of confidence in local government with the comments of Basil Morrison President of Local Government New Zealand who said that there have been some significant wins for local government. For example the Government has expanded and revised the rates rebate scheme directly addressed the issues of rates affordability at the individual household level and in some communities up to 50 percent of households have become eligible for some kind of assistance. Those comments were made by Basil Morrison President of Local Government New Zealand. 
John Carter 
: Is the Minister aware of the growing wave of concern and ratepayer revolt starting to occur across the country as mentioned by the leader of the National Party Don Brash and what is the Minister’s estimate of the percentage of annual increase in rates charged by local councils that is due to costs being passed on by this Government’s legislation? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: In answer to the issue of concern out in the community about rates yes the Government has heard a number of those concerns. However that is a decision for local government. In answer to the next part of the question with regard to shifting pressures I have already answered that question but I can answer it again. Twenty-six bits of that legislation do not impose costs on local government at all. Twenty-eight were specifically requested in whole or in part by local government and a number responded directly to major public concerns. That is where it stands. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
12.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Does he stand by his statement made in the Law and Order Committee that the $490 million blowout in the cost of the four new prisons is due to the addition of 530 more beds and in light of the fact that this would equate to nearly $1 million per bed does he now concede that his department has been reckless and wasteful in the spending of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There is no $490 million blowout. The projected costs of the total regional prisons development project have risen. The number of beds that we planned originally—1000—has gone up to 1600 beds. There have been issues of the additional costs of steel in a very buoyant economy which is something this Government takes a lot of pride in having contributed to. I am confident that we will build four very good new prisons to deal with the issues ahead of us. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm to the House that the reason he could not give the original target budgets for the construction of the four new prisons in his answers to written questions was that under the highly unusual contracting arrangements used known as collaborative working arrangements or “CWAs” there was no guaranteed maximum price? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Collaborative working arrangements or other complex management agreements are part and parcel of large projects around the world today. That member cannot understand that an agreement like that which shares the burden of any additional costs is the best way forward. I am confident that the State Services Commission’s report will answer all those queries. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that collaborative working arrangements are the brainchild of Mr Stewart Rix who was contracted for almost a million dollars to establish contracting frameworks for the construction project without a competitive tender process because he was “the only New Zealand - based provider of collaborative working systems” and can he give one example of a project where collaborative working arrangements have been used successfully anywhere else? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I cannot give details on the collaborative working arrangement other than to say it is a programme of management designed to share the risk between the designer the constructor and the owner. I do know that up and down this country there are challenges in courts of law as to the final costings for many projects because that has been part and parcel of a growing vibrant economy with huge market demands. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the collaborative working arrangement approach contractors lose a proportion of their margin if forecast costs are exceeded but if costs blow out any further “it is the department only taking responsibility” as stated in a Department of Corrections report; why are taxpayers carrying the $490 million can for this suspect contracting arrangement? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The reality is that under a Government that takes full responsibility for taxpayer-funded services across this country we ultimately carry the responsibility and the costs over a whole range of Government services. We will continue to do that rather than privatise everything as the National Party would—including prisons. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that the construction of the four prisons is being so poorly managed that contractors at the so-called “Milton Hilton” were asked to build a wall then to take it down and build it somewhere else then to take that one down and build it somewhere else and finally to take that one down and rebuild it in the original spot; does the legend of the Velcro wall not simply epitomise the massive wastage that his department has incurred at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not aware of any claims of a wall or a building being shifted four times. I can say that the Ngawha prison and the Auckland women’s regional prison were both finished within budget and on time. 
Simon Power 
: Can he now advise the House of any construction programme anywhere in the world where collaborative working arrangements have been used successfully better and more effectively than a traditional master-servant contracting arrangement? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of a number of different arrangements around the world where the costs of any blowouts are shared between designers constructors and final owners. “Collaborative working arrangement” is just a title used in New Zealand; this is a common international practice. 
Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations)  
on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: 
I move  
That the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration that the committee report finally to the House on or before 27 October 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Kei te mohio tatou koinei te Wiki o te Reo Maori a koinei te wiki hei panui ake i te kereme a Ngati Mutunga. No reira kei roto i te Whare nei nga mangai korero o Ngati Mutunga i haere tawhiti mai ra i te nuku o te whenua mai i te marumaru o to ratou maunga tihi o Taranaki hei tautokohia i tenei pire. E tika ana maku e tu ki te whakamihi atu ki a ratou kua tatu mai. E mihi ake ki nga tuahuatanga e pa ana ki a ratou nga tini aitua kei runga i tena i tena o o tatou rohe o Taranaki. No reira me ki ra te hunga wairua ki a ratou a tatou nei nga morehu o ratou e mihi nei e tangi nei e poroporoaki nei ki a ratou. 
E te Kaihautu e tika ana kia whakahonore to tatou reo rangatira kia marama whanui ai nga mema Paremata kei roto i te Whare nei ki te hohonutanga me te kaha o te wairua o tenei reo o tatou. Na reira tena tatou kia ora tatou. 
[ 
We know that this is Maori Language Week and it should be the week for the Ngati Mutunga claim to be announced. So present in this House are representatives of Ngati Mutunga who have come from their vast region beneath the shadow of the tip of Mount Taranaki to support this bill. It is fitting that I should rise and extend greetings to those who have arrived. I acknowledge the circumstances that are upon each and every one of them in those Taranaki regions of ours in respect of their many losses. We the remnants of the ones who have passed on into the spiritual world acknowledge mourn farewell and say to them: rest there 
. 
Madam Speaker it is right that we honour our chiefly language so that members of Parliament in this House are greatly enlightened by the depth and mighty spirit of this language of ours. So greetings and good health to us 
.] 
This bill recognises and addresses longstanding and significant grievances of Ngati Mutunga. One of eight iwi in Taranaki Ngati Mutunga’s traditional area is centred on the township of Urenui and extends to Titoki Ridge in the north Te Rau o Te Huia in the south and inland to the Waitara River in the east. The iwi of Ngati Mutunga numbers approximately 2000. This bill settles all of Ngati Mutunga’s historical Taranaki-based Treaty of Waitangi claims. This bill will give effect to the fourth Treaty settlement in the Taranaki region. The historical claims of Ngati Mutunga relate mainly to the confiscation by the Crown of all Ngati Mutunga’s tribal area—muru raupatu—following the Taranaki War of the 1860s. The claims also include the waging of war the unfair treatment of Ngati Mutunga as if Ngati Mutunga were in rebellion the confiscation of all Ngati Mutunga’s lands the Crown’s invasion of Parihaka and the imprisonment of Ngati Mutunga people who were involved in the passive resistance campaigns. 
In November 1996 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority to represent Ngati Mutunga in negotiations with the Crown. In September 1999 the iwi authority and the Crown signed a non-binding heads of agreement that recorded that in principle they were willing to settle the historical Taranaki-based Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngati Mutunga. In July 2005 Ngati Mutunga and the Crown signed a deed of settlement after an overwhelming majority of Ngati Mutunga people had showed their support by postal vote. At the same time a representative transparent and accountable governance entity—Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga—was also ratified. Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga will receive and manage the settlement assets. 
The bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the deed of settlement and includes a Crown apology for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles financial and commercial redress totalling $14.9 million and the transfer of 10 sites of cultural significance to Ngati Mutunga including Onaero and Urenui Domain Recreation Reserves. These reserves will continue to be managed by the New Plymouth District Council and all existing third-party interests are preserved. Statutory acknowledgments of the special association of Ngati Mutunga with 17 statutory areas include as well as entry by the Crown of Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga into the deed of recognition relating to 12 statutory areas a granting of a renewable camping entitlement over one site the right of first refusal over certain Crown properties and various items of fisheries redress. 
 I acknowledge the Ngati Mutunga people—including those who are no longer with us—who suffered the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and who carried the grievances. I thank the other Ministers and the departments involved in this process. I acknowledge the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority and its successor Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga including the members of the negotiating team. They have been a constructive and positive group to work with throughout the negotiations process and their dedication and commitment on behalf of Ngati Mutunga have been vital in the timely introduction of this bill. 
As New Zealanders we can all be proud that real and significant grievances suffered by Maori are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law. The public can be reassured that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims that will be settled by this bill and that the settlement has been negotiated with the interests of all citizens in mind. It is not possible to compensate Ngati Mutunga fully for all the prejudices and the losses that its people have suffered over time. It is a particular grief for the people of Ngati Mutunga that all their land was confiscated by the Crown and that as a consequence Ngati Mutunga lost access to the sea and to much of their cultural resources. Although this bill enables the transfer of several sites to Ngati Mutunga the Crown is fully aware that all of Ngati Mutunga’s traditional lands are of importance to Ngati Mutunga. 
The people of Taranaki and of New Zealand generally have benefited from the land and other resources confiscated and otherwise alienated from Ngati Mutunga. I again congratulate Ngati Mutunga on accepting that it is not possible to receive full compensation. The goal of this Government is to reach settlements that resolve grievances of the past. The settlement with Ngati Mutunga lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between Ngati Mutunga and the Crown into the future. The resolution of historical grievances through fair and durable settlements will help build a strong and inclusive sense of national identity. 
The bill makes it clear that this is a full and final settlement of all the historical Taranaki-based Treaty of Waitangi claims. This settlement has had a very high level of support from the Ngati Mutunga claimant community with 94 percent of those who validly participated voting in support of the Crown’s settlement offer. The people of Ngati Mutunga have waited a long time to have their grievances against the Crown addressed. They have worked hard and sacrificed much to realise this settlement. It is for these reasons I consider that the bill should proceed without delay to the Maori Affairs Committee and be reported back by 27 October 2006. This will allow the timely transfer of settlement redress to Ngati Mutunga. I commend this bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party is pleased to support this bill being sent to the Maori Affairs Committee with the intention that it should be dealt with in a very timely manner and that the settlement might be concluded some time later this year. Our view is that the speedy settlement of Treaty grievance is in the best interests of the whole country. We offer our thanks and congratulations to those from Ngati Mutunga who have for so long worked towards the day of settlement—who have worked towards ensuring that a settlement bill can be before the House for its consideration. I echo the sentiments of the Minister who expressed gratitude for the generous acceptance of this settlement in recognition of a full and final position being taken with regard to grievances. 
There is little doubt that throughout the country where settlement is conferred and accepted the ongoing economic development that comes from those settlements is of great benefit to the whole of the New Zealand economy. Perhaps what is more important I would observe is that where settlement occurs and the various iwi who are settled get hold of the assets—small though they may be in comparison with what they had—and are able to hold them to be their own and to do something with them then the general pride that exists and grows inside the iwi also has an extremely positive effect on the whole of the New Zealand population. So the value of settlements is very much about the value we put on the future we share together in this country. 
I do not think it is necessary for me to say too many more words other than to conclude my remarks by saying that we look forward to going through the select committee process. It is during that process that we learn a great deal about the history of this country in the various areas where there was a significant basis for grievance. The acknowledgment of that history the acceptance of the need to put that grievance to one side by way of redress by way of apology and by way of acknowledgment is very much part of the process we are committed to. 
I conclude by simply offering my congratulations again to those who have brought us to this day and express our desire that the next stage of the process moves as quickly as possible so that some time before Christmas we will in this House read for a third time the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to speak on what is a very important day for the Ngati Mutunga iwi and all the people of Taranaki both tangata whenua and tauiwi. Those of us who live in the New Plymouth area know of the tremendous work done by the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority to negotiate a settlement offer for the comprehensive settlement of all the historical claims of Ngati Mutunga in Taranaki. In 1996 I was impressed to be one of the people present at the discussions regarding the overarching settlement proposals and how all the 21 claims in Taranaki might be addressed. Ngati Mutunga are to be congratulated on the way they have proceeded in an area where there is a lack of land available to try to arrive at a settlement with the Crown. 
I welcome to the Chamber this afternoon a significant number of people from Ngati Mutunga who have come here on this momentous occasion. I particularly welcome the elders. I also congratulate Jamie Tuuta and his cousin Dion Tuuta the two legal experts who have worked through all of the issues and encouraged the development of a process in which the Taranaki Regional Council and the New Plymouth District Council were able to assist. Madam Speaker you will know very well the great difficulties that you in your former role presided over in trying to arrive at a settlement that took into account the needs of those who were leaseholders—particularly of some of the very desirable baches in places like Urenui and Onaero—yet also provided adequate redress for Ngati Mutunga. I also acknowledge what my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui said when he noted that it is not possible to compensate Ngati Mutunga fully for all the loss they have had—in particular the total loss of their lands—because there simply is not the land available to do that adequately. 
Ngati Mutunga have also forgone full compensation because they see that that sacrifice contributes to the development of New Zealand. Their offer to negotiate ahead to a position where everyone can agree and to administer the land in such a way that existing arrangements continue as much as possible is I think a considerable gesture of goodwill. I think it will result in a settlement that is seen overwhelmingly to be in the overall interests of the Taranaki region and of New Zealand as a whole. The iwi took their decision in relation to the settlement for themselves alone and they do not pretend that that should be the position other tribes should seek. But I think they have entered into this negotiation in a remarkably generous spirit. The House should acknowledge the efforts of Ngati Mutunga to arrive at a position that everybody can feel comfortable accepting. 
I am pleased to hear of the National Party’s support for the bill to proceed to the Maori Affairs Committee. I am sure that members of the House not only will offer this bill every goodwill in its passing but will do so in a way that is as expedient as possible. In that interest I will stop my comments there and thank the House for its attention to this matter which is of longstanding grievance to Ngati Mutunga and to Taranaki generally. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Taranaki. Tena koutou Ngati Mutunga. I am very pleased to stand and make a contribution to the first reading of the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. I consider myself to be very fortunate to have been in this House over the last 9½ years and to have been given an opportunity to contribute to these settlements for a short while as a former Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations but generally as a member of Parliament. Every time I do this I feel very respectful of Parliament—that it sees fit to work through these settlements. In the beginning we devised a process by which we could address historical claims and grievances and come forward with a settlement. The process is not perfect by any means but it is the best that is possible at this time to address longstanding grievances. 
It is very humbling as well when one looks through this bill which in this case addresses the claims of Ngati Mutunga to be reminded of the very sad history in this case—and in the case of most claims—that sits behind the settlement legislation. I am very pleased to stand and acknowledge Ngati Mutunga. I acknowledge their patience and longstanding sufferance in these matters. 
I acknowledge also the leadership that is shown when iwi finally make the decision that although they might wish to hang out for more for a bigger or better settlement in the end someone has to lead and make the decision to settle. Ngati Mutunga representatives are in this Chamber today. I acknowledge them for their leadership in finally coming to the judgment that it is time to settle time to take steps to lift the burden of their grievance and time to move forward. 
This settlement bill follows the format that generally has been in place now since the National Government introduced it. I acknowledge Sir Douglas Graham because this is another settlement for which negotiations started under Sir Doug Graham. The deed of mandate was recognised back in 1996. National was still well and truly in Government at the time. Although it has taken 10 years for the matter to come to the House in this bill it is still good that it has come. Of course Madam Speaker herself was previously the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for a wee time as well so she would have played a very important part in progressing this settlement. 
One or two matters arise from my point of view. The apology of course is extremely important particularly when one considers that this settlement revolves around the very sad time in our history when Parihaka was ransacked with Te Whiti and Tohu exercising passive resistance for the first time ever that I know of in the world. When Parihaka was ransacked people were taken. Men were sent to the South Island to be imprisoned. There were no charges. They were given no respect at all in terms of the application of the law to them simply because they stood in the way of what was seen to be a very important Pakeha settlement at the time. No matter how many times we read the narrative about Parihaka every single time we realise it is sad and absolutely tragic. 
I want to commend New Zealanders because by and large New Zealanders are fair people and by and large they support the Parliament reaching these settlements. It is only right that we do so. This issue is about reparation for wrongs that were done in our history. None of us here are guilty of those but as the elected representatives of New Zealanders in our time we have been given the opportunity to make redress for those sad times. 
Last evening of course we debated New Zealand First’s Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill whereby it seeks to have deleted from a number of enactments including settlement enactments the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Of course National members last night in the debate in the House made their views known very strongly about that. My comment in relation to the settlement bills was that those bills rest on the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles and that if we seek to remove that phrase from settlement Acts then we are ripping the heart out of Treaty settlements. I do not see why we would do that to tribes. It would not get us anywhere; it would not gain us anything. It is purely political posturing and the National members in the select committee will make sure that we apply a good measure of intelligence and proper discussion to this bill. We will ensure that the heart of the claims settlements is not ripped out by a party in this House that seeks to make only a political point. New Zealand First could not be making any other point by seeking to do that. 
This bill does refer to the claims of Ngati Mutunga in relation to the breaching of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. If it was the case that New Zealand First was seeking only to eliminate the words “the principles” that might be one thing but there is no doubt that the Waitangi Tribunal which heard the claim in the first place found the Crown to be in serious breach of its obligations under the Treaty and then in a way the mandate of this Parliament to address these matters rests on the Treaty of Waitangi. 
This is a sad moment but it is a glad moment as well. I am very pleased and privileged indeed to be here in this Parliament when the House of Representatives is seen to be addressing longstanding grievances like this one. In the end the underlying objective of all of this is that we as New Zealanders are able to reconcile with each other. Clearly that is impossible to do while a significant part of the population still carries such burdens on their backs. Happily this is the first part of the parliamentary process and this bill will be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee of which I am a member. The National members on that committee will do their bit to make sure that the bill moves forward in a timely manner. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe. E te Kaiwhakawa o te Whare nei tena ano koe. Tena hoki tatou nga mema o tenei Whare. E tika hoki maku kia tautoko nga mihi ki a koutou nga uri o Mutunga ara Ngati Mutunga. Nga mihi hoki ki a koutou nga kaumatua nga kuia nga rangatira katoa e tau mai i roto te Whare i te ra nei koutou hoki i kawe nei te kaupapa e whakatakoto mai i mua i a tatou inaianei. He mihi hoki ki a koutou o te hau kainga e noho ana i raro te maunga tapu ara Taranaki. He mihi hoki ki a koe e kara e Jamie me to ropu mo nga mahi pakeke i mahia koutou ki te whakaotingia nga mahi i tuku to iwi i runga ou pokohiwi. I te ra nei ka kite ana koe ara koutou tetahi o nga hua i puta mai i a koutou mahi whakahirahira mo te iwi o Ngati Mutunga. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
And greetings to you. Greetings to you as well Madam Speaker of this House and to us members. How fitting it is for me to be endorsing the acknowledgments to you Ngati Mutunga the descendants of Mutunga. Greetings also to the elderly both men and women and all the leading figures who are in the House today and responsible for bringing the current bill before us. To those of you back home as well living beneath the sacred mountain of Taranaki greetings. Acknowledgments to you as well Jamie for the significant work carried out by you and your group in completing the tasks that your people placed upon you. You and your group today bear witness to one of the things that have come out of your wonderful work for the Ngati Mutunga people. 
] 
 First of all Madam Speaker I acknowledge you particularly in terms of your early involvement in this process while Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I also note that you are still in the Chamber when I have noticed on previous occasions that because of your many duties you have had to leave as soon as the oral questions section of our agenda is concluded each day. So I just acknowledge that. 
On behalf of New Zealand First it is my pleasure to participate in the introduction of this bill which is a continuation of the whole settlement process involving Treaty of Waitangi claims. What is more pleasurable about this bill is that it helps to bring some closure to events of the 19th century that saw the people of Ngati Mutunga and other of their Taranaki kin suffer what I believe was one of the darkest hours in the history of our country all in the name of meeting settler demands for more land. The Waitangi Tribunal commented in relation to this claim and other Taranaki claims that there may be no other claims that have as many Treaty breaches that had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time. 
We in New Zealand First certainly recognise the fact that any settlement cannot change events of the past. However it is hoped that this bill will help compensate Ngati Mutunga with some form of redress. I say this in the context of the view expressed by the Waitangi Tribunal: “Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Maori to restore the honour of the Government to ensure cultural survival and to re-establish effective interaction between the Treaty partners.” 
The introduction today of this bill addresses the claims made by Ngati Mutunga—the descendents of Mutunga. Ngati Mutunga is one of eight recognised iwi of Taranaki and is geographically located in the northern reaches of that area. The history of this Taranaki iwi is steeped in blood and injustice and it is only right that a formal apology and compensation be given by the Crown for its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. It should be noted that although based in the shadow of Mount Taranaki the deed of settlement that has given rise to this bill did not include any specific redress relating to the confiscation of the mountain. The reason for this was clarified earlier today in a response to a question I put to the Minister. I believe—and the Minister has confirmed this—that it is intended that this matter will be addressed at a later date in the settlement process in Taranaki when all iwi are in a position to negotiate on this issue. 
The basis of the claim that this bill addresses relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. I want in particular to articulate what those breaches were. They included the waging of war that resulted in loss of life—although Ngati Mutunga as an iwi were not in rebellion but unfairly treated as being so; the use by the Crown of a scorched earth policy involving the destruction of villages and cultivation; loss of life including the killing of unarmed children by militia; the imprisonment of Ngati Mutunga people following the passive resistance campaign at Parihaka; and the confiscation of all Ngati Mutunga land. 
Of course we would not be introducing this bill to the House today were it not for the support given by the people of Ngati Mutunga to the ratification of this settlement agreement. To this end I congratulate them and in particular the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority board chaired by Jamie Tuuta and its negotiation team managed by Dion Tuuta. Both of those men give substance to the oft cited whakatauki: “Ka pu te ruha ka hao te rangatahi.” This bodes well for the iwi of Ngati Mutunga. I should also say that their decision to answer the call of their iwi has in all probability been at some personal expense to them and their whanau. The leadership commitment and courage of kaumatua negotiators to reach this stage of accepting an apology and redress from the Crown for past Treaty breaches will allow for the iwi of Ngati Mutunga to move on acknowledging that their history of loss and some may say betrayal can never be fully compensated for. Also in order to move forward and progress the shackles of past injustices must be recognised and compensated for. I believe that this bill does that. 
It is important to note in terms of the ratification process and governance arrangements involved in this particular settlement that of the 1313 adult members eligible to vote just under half of that number voted on the deed and of those 597 voted in favour of its acceptance. Of course this begs the question of what the views were of those who did not participate in this process. I say to them—some of whom may be present or listening to this debate—that by this House referring this bill to a select committee they will have the added opportunity to advise of their reasons for their non-participation. If that non-participation is related to any disagreement with the deed of settlement the settlement itself or the new governance body that will receive the proceeds of this settlement on behalf of the iwi then we would like to hear from them. I say these things because the issue of mandating and the reluctance to participate in the process—whatever the reason might be—has become a common concern when hearing submissions on Treaty settlement bills. 
This settlement as described in the bill is one of redress. It covers financial and commercial redress; relationship and cultural redress which involves the importance to Ngati Mutunga of all land in their rohe being acknowledged by the Crown; protocols for how the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Minister of Conservation the Minister for Economic Development the Minister of Energy the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister for Land Information will interact with Ngati Mutunga; and the appointment of the iwi governance entity as an advisory committee to the Ministry of Fisheries. 
 It would be remiss of me not to respond to the comments made by the previous speaker Georgina Te Heuheu particularly with regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not believe it is political posturing to seek clarity and definition of any part of the laws of our land. I say to this House that I believe this settlement and all future settlements could still proceed without references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. However if in the thinking of New Zealand First reference to the articles of the Treaty was included in the settlement then I believe it would address the very issue of those words. 
But in conclusion I want to again congratulate Ngati Mutunga. I hope this House will certainly support referring this bill to a select committee and New Zealand First is quite delighted to do so. Kia ora. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 E te manuhiri tuarangi nga kaumatua rangatira nga tungane nga tuakana koutou o Ngati Mutunga kua tae mai ki te tautoko i tenei ahiahi nau mai haere mai whakatau mai. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar to the chiefly elders brothers and older siblings to you of Ngati Mutunga who have arrived here this afternoon in support welcome welcome welcome. 
] 
The Green Party congratulates Ngati Mutunga on their settlement. Although we state regularly our objection to Government policy on the settlement process there is no doubt that extraordinary work and effort by the iwi has gone into the settlement and we acknowledge and applaud that work. Ngati Mutunga is one more of the eight Taranaki iwi to bring their settlement to the House. Their history is similarly one of dispossession and disenfranchisement at the hands of the New Zealand settler Government which—out of pure greed—unlawfully confiscated their lands and imprisoned their people. The confiscations were indiscriminate and the entirety of Ngati Mutunga’s rohe was stolen from them. The compensation process established to mitigate the thefts was never implemented. 
Ngati Mutunga rightly supported the acts of passive resistance organised by the prophets Te Whiti and Tohu Kakahi at Parihaka. The subsequent military invasion of Parihaka led to the destruction of homes; the confiscation of assets like stock; imprisonment; and the forced removal of some 1600 women men and children—Maori effectively made refugees in their own country. I would like members to just reflect on that for a moment with the indulgence of Ngati Mutunga who are here in the gallery today. 
One of the things that truly confounds me about modern-day Pakeha objections to the Treaty—and perhaps not just Pakeha objections if we consider the New Zealand First bill that came before the House last night—and to Maori struggles for recognition is that they are constructed entirely within a Pakeha experience of living in Aotearoa that has been comparatively benign. By saying that I mean that the settlement of New Zealand post-1840 has for the most part been without significant violence for its Pakeha inhabitants. It has been a peaceful process for those people because the violence committed in those early years of colonisation was done on behalf of the Pakeha settlers by a Government that had the resources to take extraordinary military action against tangata whenua. Most—although certainly not all—of the settlers and their descendants have been insulated from the impact of that military force and the subsequent violence and dispossession that occurred. 
For mana whenua of course it has been a completely different experience of living in this country. Who here has great-grandparents who—in this country in Aotearoa—were forcibly removed from their land at the point of a Government’s gun? Ngati Mutunga—the Taranaki iwi at least—could all put up their hands in answer to that question. Who here has grandparents who in this country had to stand on the side of the road surrounded by their belongings while they watched bulldozers smash through their houses because their land had been taken under the a public works Act? Anyone from Ngati Turangitukua could put up their hands in answer to that. Who here has parents who were punished in a New Zealand school for speaking their own language—the language indigenous to this culture and this country? I could put up my hand to having had that experience. Those are not the experiences of Pakeha in this country but they are the lived real experiences reflected on every day by Maori by tangata whenua. 
It is the relatively peaceful and benign settlement of this country that distorts what has been a brutal history for the tangata whenua and the mana whenua of our communities. We cannot undo those experiences and we certainly do not want to recreate those experiences for those who have not suffered them but we must find the means by which to bring real recognition and make restitution for those experiences. 
That requires us to take our disapproval of past events—which we have heard expressed here today and will no doubt hear again when similar bills come up—to our analysis of current-day attitudes and legislative action because if we do not apply that analysis everything that is said in this House about those historical roles or that disapproval is meaningless and—what is worse—hypocritical. To that end I think that we should all Maori and Pakeha alike be enormously grateful to Ngati Mutunga and to all the other hapu and iwi who bring their settlements to us. They provide us with a window to the lived experience of war forced removal unjust imprisonment and even murder—real experiences of whole communities only a few generations old. I do not expect every member of Parliament to understand this but we have to find a mechanism for a just process for the restitution of these claims that is based on the Treaty text and the full promises it contains because our only alternative to doing that is to have a society founded on war and destruction. 
Surely we should celebrate the fact that we are in the globally enviable position of having a choice between either a nation built on bloodshed or a nation built on an agreement fully honoured understood and implemented. Yes it does require us to face very unsavoury and frightening facts. For example although most people would agree that the actions concerning the sacking of Parihaka were unjust many will still deny that it was racist even though the purpose of that sacking and thefts was to destroy the mana whenua and their tikanga. Knowing our history is a first critical step towards finding that process and this settlement is part of doing that. 
I think that we must also remember that Maori—the hapu that have come here today and who will no doubt come in the future—are extremely generous in accepting these settlements. Like Taranaki iwi before them Ngati Mutunga have agreed to accept less than they would otherwise be entitled to for the significant loss they have suffered. They have agreed to cooperate with the Government and within a Government process that does not recognise their tikanga but that requires them to operate within a Pakeha framework. Let us not forget that only about 1 percent of the value of compensation is paid in Treaty settlements and that any initiatives designed to lift Maori to any kind of equal footing with the rest of the community are considered by many politicians in this House to be far too generous. 
The Greens have in the past been very clear that but for the work of the iwi in concluding these settlements and the costs in time money and people this awful process requires we would vote against settlements. But we will not; we will support them. We remain in complete opposition to a process by which the Government dictates the way in which things should be done in the tangata whenua domain and in complete opposition to a process by which the wronged party is expected to submit to terms imposed by the wrongdoer. That method of dealing with injustices of the past cannot possibly hope to achieve a real resolution. I have said it before and I will say it again: an unfair process for the resolution of wrongs does not have any durability. Our own history which we can reflect on every day proves that and it is about time that the Government and parliamentarians learnt from those mistakes. If that lesson could be learnt there would be a far healthier relationship with Maori and with the community overall in this country but as it stands I believe that that relationship remains a dysfunctional and abusive one. 
The Green Party looks forward to hearing the concerns and views of Ngati Mutunga and those concerned with the settlement during the select committee process. We would like again to congratulate them on their perseverance and commitment to achieving a settlement for the benefit of their people. Kia ora. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
E te Kaiwhakawa tena koe. E te Whare tena tatau katoa. Ngati Mutunga koutou i haramai i te hauauru koutou i haramai i raro o te tihi o te maunga Taranaki tena koutou. Haramai e te raukura i titia ki nga hau o Taranaki. Haramai Tokomaru. Haramai te hunga i rongo nei i te raupatu me te muru o te whenua. Haramai ki te Whare nana koutou i tukino nana na ona ture koutou i patu. Kua hikoi mai koutou ki nga kuaha ki nga pakitara o te Whare nei ahakoa kua rongo koutou i te makariri o te ringa o te tangata nei o te Karauna. Nau mai haramai ki te rua o te taniwha. Tena koutou i a ratau i para nei i te ara mo tenei ra. Ratau kua haere ake ki tua o te pae o maumahara. Haere nga mate haere koutou whakaoti atu. 
E hoa ma anei tatau o te Whare e whakawhitiwhiti korero nei e whakawa ana i tenei o nga pire. E whakawa ana matau mena kua ea nga nama ki a koutou o Ngati Mutunga i runga i te tika me te pono me ki ko nga mamae o nga mahi a pokokohua me ona kawai uri a tahae a whanako a kohuru a murere a kuare a whakaiti a patu tangata a patu mahara a patu mauri. No reira Ngati Mutunga ahakoa kua ea te wahanga ki era i uhia i te kakahu putiotio a te kuia nei a mate i nga tau ki a matau o te Pati Maori kare ano kia ea te wahanga ki nga uri whakatipu.  
Kia mohio mai koutou anei te ahuatanga ki a matou o te Pati Maori. I te tuatahi ko ta matau e ki nei e tika ana ma tena iwi ma tena hapu ia e korero e whakarite e whai i ona ake huarahi ko nga huarahi e tika ana mona. Koia ra te tikanga o te tino rangatiratanga e korerohia ake nei e waiatatia ana i runga i o tatau marae. Ko te mate ke i tenei take a koutou otira a iwi ke ano hoki ki te whakaae matau ka riro ma te whanako ano te whanako e whakawa e whakarite i tona ake nama ki te hunga i rongo nei i te hara me tana ki mai: “Aroha mai anei nga kongakonga o taku tepu.” ko te ngakau kei te ki kaore tera i te tika. Koira te mutunga mai o te he. 
Kaore matau o te Pati Maori te whakapono kei te tika nga mahi a te Karauna kore kore kore rawa matau e whakaae. E ki e ki! Na wai i ki ma te tahae tonu e whakatau ko te wariu o te whenua i whanakohia e ia? Na wai i ki ma te tahae e tohu ko tehea o nga rawa ka whakahokia mai e ia? Ara ano te korero: “He kitenga kanohi ka hoki nga mahara.” 
Kei te maumahara matau Ngati Mutunga i te kohurutanga o o koutou tupuna e te Karauna. Kua tuhia ki roto i nga korero o te motu. I timata mai ai nga pakanga i te wa i paku mai nga pu o nga kaipuke i waho ake o Waitara. Ko te tangata tona kai. Nawai ra ko te katoa o Taranaki i rongo i te ngau o te ture ara ko te muru me te raupatu. Kei te mohio tonu au kei te rongo tonu a Taranaki i te mamae e te ahuatanga o te raupatu e kore e taea karo. I te mauheretia o koutou whanaunga mo te aha? Ko to ratau hara he whawhai kia kore ai a whanako e mahi i ana mahi kia kore ai o ratau whenua e riro ki a tahae. Koira anake to koutou hara. 
Ka hoki nga whakaaro ki a ratau ma ko “o ratau pona kei muri i nga taringa” 
.  
Ko ratou i mauheretia i Otakou i Wharekauri ranei nga wahine i tukinohia e nga hoia o te Kawana. Me pehea e taea ai te whakamama i te ngau o era tu momo mahi ko te tukino tangata. E kore e taea e te moni e kore e taea e te kupu korero e kore e taea e te tuohu o te mahunga. Ara ano te korero: “Ma te wa a te mamae e whakaora e whakamama.” 
E kare ma e kore e taea mena ka patua te kino ki tetahi kino ano. Koia nei te mahi o te Karauna i te ra nei. I tenei rangi kei te aroha atu matau ki a koutou kei te taumaha te ngakau. 
He aha te rongoa hei panipani hei whakaora i era tu momo taumahatanga. Anei pea wetahi whakaaro. Kohia nga korero i korerotia e koutou panuitia i roto i nga pukapuka tohatohaina ki nga marae me nga kura o Taranaki kia kitea mai ai e te katoa o nga reanga whakatipu anei ke nga korero a Ngati Mutunga.  
Tuarua e ki mai ana te ngarara ka mutu nga take katoa e pa ana ki nga kereme na tenei pire. Ko ta te Karauna kaore he hokinga tuarua mai. E hoa ma penei i tera waiata rongonui ko ta matou o te Pati Maori e ki nei: “Hoki mai e Mutunga ki roto ki roto i nga ringa e tuwhera atu nei.” 
A kati i reira. Ki atu ki o koutou tamariki ki te hoki mai ki te Whare nei patoto ki te kuaha ahakoa ko wai te hunga o roto. Tera pea he paraoa nui nei kei te tepu a taua wa. 
Hei ta tetahi korero a Mokomoko o Te Whakatohea: nana te ki: “Tangohia te taura i taku kaki kia waiata au i taku waiata.” Ki taku mohio he momo taura ano kei o koutou kaki he pene i te ringa. Kei te ringa o te Karauna ko te taura ko tana mahi ko te kukume mai hei mirimiri i te kaki. Kei te pai hoki mai. Tangohia te taura kia waiata ano koutou i o koutou waiata. Kia poi atu ano koutou i o koutou poi. Kia rongo ano te motu i te paopao mai o te taramu. 
Na ka tahuri tatau ki nga korero a te Kawana i tera tau ara i Hongongoi i te marae o Urenui. E ai ki taku rongo i reira i puta nga korero mo Pomare raua ko Te Rangihiroa nga uri o Ngati Mutunga ko a raua whakaahua kei te pakitara i waho ake i o matau tari. Kei te tangi tonu te ngakau ki a raua i mua i taku taenga mai i te ahiahi nei. He tangi aroha he mamae he pouri nei. Kei konei a Tariana to koutou mema Paremata o Te Hauauru e tangi nei a kei te marama koutou ki tona ahua me nga take kua kokirihia e ia. Ko tana he tu pakari he tautoko he whawhai he akiaki i te Kawana kia tika kia pono nga mahi a pokokohua ma ahakoa te uauatanga o era mahi. Kei te mohio koutou i tona tu i Pakaitore i roto o Whanganui tona tu hoki i te wa i murua e tenei Kawana i te takutai moana i te tau rua mano ma wha. 
Me ki kei te harikoa a whanako i tenei rangi. Ko ta te Minita i Urenui i tera tau he mihi atu ki a koutou mo o koutou whakaaro rangatira. “Mo Aotearoa whanui te painga” e ai ki tana. “Ma Aotearoa whanui te painga” i whiwhi i a koutou te tekau ma rima miriona taara kia ea ai te nama mo nga mahi nanakia engari ko tona tikanga ara noa atu te utu. “Mo Aotearoa whanui te painga” ahakoa nana koutou i kohuru i nga rau tau ki muri tae ra ano ki enei rangi.  
Ara ano te korero: “He honore he kororia he maungarongo ki runga i te mata o te whenua he whakaaro pai ki nga tangata katoa 
.”  
Ko tau he aroha ki te iwi. Ko ta te Karauna he whakaaro mona ake he matapiko. No reira kei te aroha ake. Heoi ano Ngati Mutunga tena koutou i kaha nei ki te kokiri i tenei take to koutou tono ki te whanako ara ki te Karauna kia taea ai e koutou te whai te huarahi ki te paenga. 
Kia mohio mai koutou ka noho wahangu te tokotoru ko tetahi ka tautoko. Ko ta matau ke—he toka tu hei akiaki i te Karauna ki te whakatikatika i nga tikanga a-tono ki a ia kia mahi rangatira ia kia ea ai ona nama. Ko te mate ke kei te mohio matau i te mutunga kei a nanakia te korero whakamutunga. Kei a ia te ki me penei me pera. Kei a ia te ki me penei me pera kei a ia te ki anei nga taonga ka whakahokia tona whakahihi! E te karauna ara ano te korero: “E kore te uku e piri ki te rino ka whitingia e te ra ka ngahoro.” Kei te tika tera korero i tenei ra. Kaua e pohehe ka ea katoa i tenei ra. He ra ano apopo. Na reira Ngati Mutunga kei te tangi kei te tangi matau. Kia kaha kia maia. Tena koutou tena koutou. Kia ora tatau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and to all of us in the House. Ngati Mutunga you who have come from the west you who have come from beneath the crest of Taranaki greetings. Welcome the raukura the feather of peace that has blown throughout Taranaki. Welcome Tokomaru. Welcome you who have suffered from confiscation and loss of lands. Welcome to this House which is the place responsible for your downfall whose laws were used to silence you. You have come to the door to the walls of this House even though you have felt the cold hand of this person the Crown. Welcome welcome to the lair of the taniwha. Welcome as you bring with you those who set the scene those who have passed on beyond the veil. Depart the dead farewell and rest there forever. 
Friends here we are in the House exchanging thoughts examining this bill. We are considering whether the debts owed to you Ngati Mutunga have been settled in a fair and honest manner. That is to say let the pain of those whose heads should roll come down on their descendants—namely for the greed theft murder treachery ignorance belittling and destruction of people of mind and of spirit. Ngati Mutunga although it has been settled with those who have been covered in the prickly cloak of death in years gone by to us the Maori Party the debt has not been settled with this generation. 
You should know this is what we of the Maori Party believe. Firstly we say that it is appropriate that each iwi each hapu speaks for itself organises itself and follows its own path—a path that it sets for itself. That is the expression of tino rangatiratanga that we speak about and we sing about on our marae. The problem with this issue of yours and indeed of other iwi is that if we leave it for the thief to judge the thief to determine the debt to those who suffered by his actions although he may say: “I’m sorry these are the crumbs at my table it is all that I have.” the heart says that this is not correct. This is the ultimate crime. 
We of the Maori Party do not believe that the Crown is behaving honourably—never never never will we agree. How dare they! Who said that it is for the thief to determine the value of the land that he stole? Who said that it is appropriate for the thief to determine which of the resources will be returned? “Seeing the faces stimulates the memory.” We remember Ngati Mutunga we remember the murder of your people by the Crown. It has been written in the history. The battles began at the time of the firing of the cannons out of Waitara. People were the cost. So it was that all of Taranaki was to feel the gnashing of the law. I know that Taranaki still grieves. The grief will be eternal. It cannot be removed. Your relatives were incarcerated for what gain? Their crime was to oppose the Crown so that the thief would not steal. That was your solitary crime.  
Our thoughts go back today to those who have passed on whose knees are behind their ears—those who were incarcerated at Otago or the Chatham Islands; the women who were raped by the soldiers of the Crown. How can you possibly lighten the pain of those actions? Neither money nor apology and the bowing of the head will ever erase from the memory the scars of that time. There is another saying:“Time will heal all pain.” Friends this is not possible if you layer one injustice upon another. This is what the Crown is doing today. Today we grieve with you. Our spirits weep our hearts are heavy. 
What remedy do we have to smooth over and heal such deep wounds? Here are some thoughts. Gather your stories. Publish them. Distribute them to the marae and schools of Taranaki so that the coming generations can see that these are the truths of Ngati Mutunga. 
Secondly the Crown says that this is a full and final settlement. According to the Crown there is no return. Friends just like that famous song we of the Maori Party say: “Return o Mutunga welcome back to our open hands.” Enough! Let us leave it there. Tell your children to come back to this House and knock on the door no matter who resides within. Perhaps there will be a bigger loaf on the table. 
Recalling a statement from Mokomoko of Whakatohea when he said: “Take the rope from my neck so that I can sing my song.” I believe there is a type of rope also around your neck. The Crown has its hands on the rope. Its actions are to tug at the rope to give you a reminder. It is OK. Come back take off the rope so that you may sing your song; so that you can swing again your poi; so that the nation can again hear the beat of the drums. 
Let us now turn to the statement by the Crown in July last year at Urenui Marae. According to what I heard tales were related about Maui Pomare and Sir Peter Buck the descendants of Ngati Mutunga whose pictures adorn the walls outside our offices. I grieved for them as I came here this afternoon. It was a loving painful and gloomy time. Tariana your member of Parliament grieves with me. And it goes without saying that you know the type of person she is and the issues she has addressed. Despite the difficulties her position has always been one of strength of supporting of battling and of raising the issues with the Government so that those whose heads should roll would act honourably and with integrity. You know of her actions at Pakaitore within Whanganui and the actions she took at the time of the passing of the foreshore and seabed legislation in 2004. 
Let us say the thief is indeed celebrating today. At Urenui last year the Minister praised you for your generosity. This was for the benefits that according to him were bestowed upon all New Zealanders. It was for the benefit of all New Zealanders that you accepted only $11 million to repay the debt; however we know that the value of your losses was greater. It was for the benefit of all New Zealanders even though it was he who inflicted the suffering from that period of 100 years ago to the present. 
There is another saying:“Honour and glory peace throughout the land goodwill to all people.” Your action was generosity to the nation. The Crown’s was mean-spirited. So we lament for you. However Ngati Mutunga we congratulate you on your strength in advocating with the thief—that is the Crown—so that you can forge the path to the future. 
You need to know that three of us will not be voting and one will be supporting. The problem is that we know in the end they have the final say. They will determine what will be how it will be done and what resources will be returned and distributed. How arrogant! For the Crown there is another saying: “Clay will not stick to iron; when the sun shines it will dry and fall away.” And so Ngati Mutunga we are grieving. Be strong and brave. Greetings greetings.  
Thank you all 
.] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on behalf of United Future on the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. I must say that I regard it as a great honour and a privilege to do so. It is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking on a settlement bill in this Parliament and it is likely to be the last because it is not actually within my spokesmanship area. But as I say I am very honoured to do so. 
I am very honoured today to extend greetings on behalf of United Future to the Ngati Mutunga iwi—to the members who are here today and to those who might be listening from afar to the radio or otherwise—and to say that I rejoice greatly in this day. I rejoice in the day that begins the process of formalising a settlement that is already signed off with endorsement by Parliament and therefore by the people of New Zealand. 
As other members have said each of these settlement bills that we look into is the result of a process—a process that in this case has gone on for I think about 146 years from the date when the wrongs were originally perpetrated against the people of this iwi right through until today. The first thing we must do of course is to face up to the wrongs that were done: the waging of war; the use of a scorched earth policy involving the destruction of villages a culture and a civilisation; the loss of life including that of unarmed children; the imprisonment of members of the iwi following the passive resistance campaign at Parihaka; and the confiscation of the iwi’s land. 
 On any list of infamies those actions rate highly. We say they were perpetrated by the Crown but the point I would like to bring to the attention of Parliament today is that in truth it was not the monarch—who was far off 12000 miles away in England—who initiated and undertook those deeds but the people of this nation with the backing and authority of the New Zealand Parliament. Therefore as a Parliament we need to recognise that it is appropriate that today we are the ones who are settling this matter. I will come back to that point in a moment. 
It is a very very healthy wholesome step forward for a nation to face up to past wrongdoings and it is the first step in working towards settlement and restitution for those deeds. Today in this debate we are clearly saying that yes we are facing up to the past—a past that none of us was involved in personally but one that has had devastating consequences for the people of this iwi from that day to this. Therefore the process that we go through in a settlement claim and moving on to the question of restitution for those past wrongdoings is itself fraught with huge difficulty. 
Those who were killed are now in the hands of God. The land that was taken is for the most part now in the private ownership of others. So we are left with a limited range of ways in which we can make restitution and put the wrongdoing of the past right to the greatest possible extent. Today I do not want to get into quibbling about the amount of the settlement or the way it has been agreed or to look at it just from the point of view of arithmetic in terms of how many cents in the dollar it represents and issues of that sort. What we should agree on is that this is a tangible action taken by the people of New Zealand through their elected representatives to try at least to acknowledge the wrongs of the past and to make some measure of restitution. It can never be enough because one cannot measure the actions that I have mentioned from just an economic or financial point of view. It obviously goes way way beyond that. 
That is why the apology which is also tendered in this settlement deed is of such tremendous significance. It represents a plea I believe by the people of New Zealand and this Parliament for forgiveness. The members of the Ngati Mutunga iwi as others have mentioned have been immensely generous in this matter. We acknowledge that generosity. We also acknowledge the shortcomings in our ability to make restitution but nevertheless our apology and request for forgiveness I hope will be reciprocated in a similar way in the spirit of generosity and acceptance because that is the only way that I know of that may help us in the healing of this matter. How else do we heal the past? 
I have never ever agreed for instance with the examples we have seen in the United States of America when someone suffers an accident or a death and a court gives them millions of dollars by way of compensation. In some ways that is a futile and easy thing to do. It is more difficult to dig a little bit deeper into our hearts and souls and come to a situation where we are prepared to apologise and forgive and then work together for our joint future. 
Settlements from my point of view and from United Future’s point of view are if you like beacons on the roadway to a brighter future—for the iwi certainly but because the iwi are no more than part and parcel of our nation for our nation as a whole. All parts of our nation are strengthened when we come to a settlement of this sort. All parts of our nation were weakened when we failed for so many years to address the issue and when we tried to ignore it. Today as I have said we are at least facing up to the deep hurt and the harm that were caused. 
As I said a moment ago in addition to the Crown’s apology as a member of Parliament I would also like to express my apologies. As the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and the Hon Georgina te Heuheu know I believe that the New Zealand Parliament at some stage in our future perhaps when all the settlements have been completed also needs to apologise because it was the New Zealand Parliament that actually took these actions. 
The Crown is apologising because it is the other party to the Treaty. But as we all know under our form of constitutional democracy it is not in fact the Crown that governs; it is the people who govern through elections. So all of us to that extent have been involved in these wrongdoings and I hope we will see the day when in addition to the Crown apologising Parliament itself can also acknowledge its role in these matters. In the meantime I look forward to a bright future for the Ngati Mutunga iwi. I wish them well. I hope they will invest the money that is being settled through this bill shrewdly and wisely for the benefit of future generations. 
I would like to say one last thing which is that in some ways as the late Bishop Max Mariu pointed out on the occasion of the Tainui settlement this process needs to be accompanied by a great deal of aroha—of love. That is something we cannot legislate for but it is something that we can all attempt to express in our relationships and it is a powerful force on which we can build a nation. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to begin this first reading speech this afternoon by recounting an incident that occurred in the lobby earlier this afternoon. I was trying to find the  
Hansard 
 debate on the special legislation that provided for the imprisonment without trial of the leaders of Parihaka. One of the messengers asked me what I was doing clambering up a ladder and when I told him he informed me that his great-grandfather a Welshman called Llewellyn Gwilliams had been involved in the Parihaka incident when he served in the British Army. That incident turned his great-grandfather into a pacifist and he subsequently became very friendly with the Maori of the area. It is a small reminder that this country is indeed rather small and that links to Parihaka exist even in the precincts of this Chamber. So it is really a very great honour to be asked to speak in this debate and I am delighted that at last some of the ghosts of the past may be put to rest by this settlement. I welcome the representatives of Ngati Mutunga to Parliament for this first reading debate. I congratulate them on the settlement and on all the work they have done so that this bill can reach the stage where it can be introduced today. 
I think it is always useful to remind ourselves of the importance of historical settlements because some people say that people simply have to move on and let go of the burdens of the past yet this is a fundamentally flawed approach to historical settlements in this country. The rationale for the historical treaty settlements was I think best expressed by Sir Douglas Graham in this place during the second reading of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Bill when he said: “In 1991 the Government embarked on a comprehensive attempt to address the longstanding claims by Maori against the Crown. It had concluded that a future that allowed Maori to remain in grievance over claims that were just was no future at all—not only for Maori but for all of us. Indeed we should be thankful that Maori have always been prepared to seek justice through negotiation in a spirit of goodwill rather than resort to other means as has occurred so tragically in other countries.” That importance and that approach is certainly exemplified by this bill. 
The history of the Waitangi Tribunal’s claim process is set out in the bill itself—in the preamble—and I will not repeat it suffice to say that the claim began in 1990 and went on to 1995 and then in June 1996 an interim report was published. I do not think the Government does enough to publicise these reports. I can think of many great reports that have been written by the tribunal over the years that should be read by as many New Zealanders as possible. An example I can think of is the Muriwhenua claim which I had the privilege of reading when I was involved in a lot of the fisheries litigation leading up to the 2004 settlement. This Taranaki report is also a “must read”. The negotiations then continued for almost 10 years before this legislation could be introduced—[ 
Interruption 
] In answer to Mr Jones I ask what we are to learn from this. Well the first point is that the Treaty settlement process takes too long. It has been 15 years of involvement for Ngati Mutunga in tribunal litigation and then negotiations. I say that that is unfair. I also say that the tribunal is underfunded which is why it so often has to resort to stop-start hearings. This Government has kept the tribunal underfunded over the past 7 years and has allowed negotiations to go on and on. 
The National Party in Government will pursue Treaty settlements with vigour and determination just as Sir Douglas Graham and Mr Jim Bolger did in the 1990s. When I mention the name Jim Bolger I am sure he would very much like to join with the National Party in welcoming this settlement because as I understand it he grew up in that area and had very many contacts with the people of Ngati Mutunga. Apparently Matiu Rata reportedly once said to Ben Couch that Maori like it when “you lot are in power because you get things done.” I promise not only Ngati Mutunga but the other Maori of this country that that is exactly what we will do after the next election. 
I want to spent some time on the apology because again some people do not like apologies; they think they are weasel words. But I happen to think they are very important. Again the rationale for apologies is spelt out in the speech of Sir Douglas Graham in the second reading of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Bill. He acknowledged that some people feel uncomfortable about apologies and said: “But how can a wrong be righted without an acknowledgment of the wrong and an expression of regret that it occurred? How can the relationship prosper in the future if the settlement now concluded is accompanied with a denial of liability?” as so often happens in the settlement of say commercial litigation. So apologies are very important. But whether apologies should be recorded in statute is something that I have a few doubts about. 
My friend Georgina te Heuheu referred to the New Zealand First bill that was debated last night that seeks to delete all references to “principles of the Treaty” from all legislation. 
Shane Jones 
: Foolish legislation! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Absolute foolishness. I heard the words of the New Zealand First speaker earlier in this debate but ask him to reflect on clause 7 of this bill because the effect of what he said would be to delete chunks of that bill. Is that really what he wants? I am not too worried about that legislation because I believe that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be able to tidy it up. But how can Parliament responsibly interfere with the text of a settlement with Maori? I do not believe it can. 
Frankly there is much to apologise for to Ngati Mutunga and I certainly refer to the very well written and quite emotional parts of the preamble that talk about Parihaka. I do not intend to elaborate on the story in this speech—we all know what happened there. We all know or should know that it is a real blot on the nation’s history. 
As an aside I can tell the House that some years ago my former law firm Bell Gully was a co-sponsor of an art exhibition called Parihaka. It was one of the most powerful art exhibitions I have ever seen. It certainly puts the Constable exhibition way down the ladder of importance. 
Pita Paraone 
: Chocolate-boxy! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I think I called it chocolate-boxy the other night. As the then chair of the Arts Board I was very keen to tour that exhibition but as usual I was thwarted by the bureaucrats in Creative New Zealand who I think were more interested in touring donkeys braying in toilets. 
In this debate I am not going to dwell on other elements of the settlement. I simply conclude my remarks by saying I am delighted that Ngati Mutunga have reached this stage in their history. It is certainly time that the reality of what happened at Parihaka was recognised by this Parliament which passed that dreadful legislation in the early 1880s. I conclude by reflecting on a visit I had a couple of months ago to Victoria and Vancouver in British Columbia. I saw a statement of position that had been developed by the provincial Liberal Government in its dealings with indigenous peoples. I think there is a lot in Canada that we could adopt here. The statement of position essentially said that whatever the past whatever wrongs happened in the past we are all here to stay so let us work together to undo the burdens of the past and move forward for the sake of our country and for each one of us here. That is what historical settlements are all about. It is certainly what this settlement is all about. I congratulate all concerned on getting the legislation to this stage. 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
: 
 Tena koe te Koroheke o te Pouwhare nei koe e noho mai i runga i to Turu e rongo atu i nga korero whakaputa i tenei wa. Ka tu mai ahau i konei na ka kimikimi hoki he korero mai i te pataka korero mai i te pataka maumahara ki a ratou. Na ka puta tetehi wahanga o te waiata “Te Piukara”. Ka penei mai: “E piki mai Pungarehu ka tangi mai te piukara.” 
Mai i te tangi mai o te piukara i tenei wa ara nga hoariri me o ratou nei hoio. Ka tangi mai ano te piukara. Titoki ki te Rau o te Huia nga huki o te iwi o Mutunga. Koutou e noho ngatahi i te taha o Te Ati Awa Ngati Tama ara te Rau o te Huia ki Onukutaipare. Tatou katoa nga uki o te waka Tokomaru. Tetehi o nga maunga o nga waka e noho mai ra i runga i te tihi o te maunga tapu Taranaki tena koutou. 
Tena koutou e kai kawe mai ta koutou nei kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te Pouwhare nei engari kua whakaae au i te korero o te tangata mai i Te Arawa. Ahakoa nga piki me nga heke te uauatanga ka mau koutou i tetehi o nga korero mai i te poropiti a Te Whiti i tona wa me tana ki ki te iwi: “E te iwi whakaraupo i a koutou i te riri mai o te hau ka piko. Ki te mutu o te riri mai te hau ka tu ano.” Tena koutou nga uki haere mai nei na ka tu ano. 
[ 
Greetings to you the Deputy Speaker of this House sitting there in your Chair and listening to the debate. I stand here pondering over what I can extract from the storehouse of talk and from the database in my mind. And what comes to me is part of a lament called “The Bugle” that goes like this: “Rise up Pungarehu the bugle sounds.” From the time the bugle sounds there is the enemy and their horses. The bugle sounds again. Ah! It is Titoki of the Huia Feather the descendants of the Mutunga people. You people living side by side with Te Ati Awa Ngati Tama and indeed the Feather of the Huia collective at Onukutaipare. All of us of the Tokomaru canoe the canoe of all canoes sitting on the tip of the sacred Mount Taranaki. Greetings to you. 
Greetings to you for bringing your matter before this House. I concur with the member from Te Arawa who stated that despite the highs lows and difficulties you have held fast to one of prophet Te Whiti’s sayings when he uttered; “People make yourselves like the bulrush. In times when the wind vents its wrath the bulrush does not fight it but rather bends with it. When the wind is at peace with itself the bulrush stands majestically once more.” So greetings to you the relatives. You have come and are now standing tall once again. 
] 
In the song I sang as an introduction ko te ingoa ko “Te Piukara” the bugle was blown from Pungarehu going up to Parihaka and it was blown by nga hoariri which means of course the enemy. But let me be very very clear about the Land Wars in Taranaki. In a previous speech those people were referred to as thieves rapists and other such low lives. Let me tell the House that they did not come alone. We know ko wai e hikoi ngatahi ai i te taha o nga tangata me ki [ 
who walked side by side with 
] 
thieves rapists and others. I will leave it there. 
To think otherwise is to have some fantasy about the reality. It is to have some fantasy that those who came to Parihaka i te pahua o Parihaka [ 
to rob Parihaka 
] were all white. I just thought in the context of a previous discussion that I would make that point very clear. I am not talking about the tribal wars I am talking about the other war—te pakanga a whenua [ 
the Land Wars 
]. So to Mutunga me o koutou nei wai wairua ara a Puke Whakamaru a Pokura a Urenui a Maruehi Te Kaweka a Taumutu hoki me era atu koutou e whakatutuki ai i nga moemoea o o taueke a-pakeke mai i te ao tawhito hekeheke iho nei ki a Pomare ki a Te Rangihiroa ki a Koro Raumati a hamiora a Wiremu nga kuia taueke katoa. Tena koutou e kaikawe mai i taua kaupapa mamae haehae mai i te kaingakau o tatou. 
[ 
and your spiritual waters: namely Puke Whakamaru Pokura a Urenui Maruehi Te Kaweka Taumutu as well and all the others including you who ensured that the wishes of those old ones from way back were fulfilled and down the years to the era of Pomare Buck Koro Raumati Hamiora Wiremu and all the dear old wise ladies. Greetings to you submitters in respect of that hurtful and extremely painful matter from within ourselves. 
] 
 I have heard that there has been some meaning given to that raukura. There are three parts to the raukura. Kororia ki Te Atua i Runga Rawa maungarongo ki runga i te whenua wakaaro pai ki nga tangata katoa. 
[ 
Glory to the Almighty above peace upon the land and goodwill to all mankind. 
] 
But there is also another piece to it which goes: ka uru te kino ki te pai. [ 
evil enters good. 
] 
Two people present in this House grew up in Parihaka. They are two people who had a life experience that was significantly raw and extraordinarily difficult because at that time 90 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand people did not know that Parihaka actually existed let alone knew its stories. In my view it was a purposeful cleansing of a history that needed to be told. 
I would also like to pay tribute to te kuia morehu o koutou e noho mai ra ki Pukeariki. [ 
your surviving residing matriarch Pukeariki. 
] 
I talk here about Matarena Rau Kupa and those other kuia who kept the messages alive for me. Those kuia worked at Parihaka and they represented every iwi of Taranaki. Ko te nuinga kua mate. Kua mate noa atu engari anei te tohutohu mai ratou ki a au: [ 
The majority have died long ago but here is advice from them to me: 
] “Whangai mai te hoariri. 
”  
If I may translate that that means feed thy enemies. What an extraordinary philosophy to have given whence they came. It is extraordinary yet for some reason these kuia held to it. I suppose that would be the biggest most significant issue because it is putting into practice something called passive resistance. It is not that I adhere to that particular philosophy by the way—I do feed people—but I admire it not only for its articulation but also because it was held to in spite of challenges to it. 
So today is significant not only because there is a claim before us in this House but also because this claim engenders a whole range of memories that some of us share. One of the outcomes of my Parihaka experience was that it took me about 16 years to relay it to anyone who was not Maori. That is part of the process of going through that experience that Ururoa put so well about the effects that these things have not only culturally in terms of language loss and whenua kua riro [ 
land taken 
] but also that stuff in the head. It took me 40 years to get past it—40 long years full of adventure in trying to do so. I am past it but that does not mean to say one forgets it. 
So to those old people those people who did not live to see this happen those people kua tiraha ra ki te taumata mai o koutou iwi me nga iwi katoa o Taranaki; a ratou ra e whakakopekope mai i runga i te marae o Parihaka waiata korero ai tena koutou tena koutou. 
[ 
who lie outstretched at the pinnacle that your people and the whole of Taranaki strive for; those ones swaying to and fro upon the marae of Parihaka singing and talking greetings to you greetings. 
]  
If Marge is listening today I send her our collective blessings because as I said she is the kuia morehu he mau pirikaha ai ki nga korero a Te Whiti raua ko Tohu te mutunga ki a koutou koutou kua uhia mai o koutou nei pokohiwi i te kakahu o ratou nau mai. Kore tenei tu e tu wakaporearea mai i o koutou nei moemoea. Kua tautoko katoa Te Ropu Reipa i o koutou nei kaupapa nei me ratou ra me te katoa pea ahakoa e toru nga mema o te Ropu Maori e kore e tukuna. 
[ 
surviving kuia who clings steadfastly to the preachings of Te Whiti and Tohu and what remains is draped over your shoulders for you to follow up. I am not going to impede this dream of yours. All of Labour is supporting this matter of yours as well as those ones over there and the majority perhaps even though three members of the Maori Party are not. 
] 
As a conclusion I acknowledge New Zealand First. It does not happen very often. New Zealand First in its coalition agreement with National in 1996 had as a key priority to address the issues surrounding reserve lands. That party had the political courage and commitment to address an issue that had been sitting around politically for many many years. I have to acknowledge that because those lands that were confiscated kua raupatungia went into reserve as well. Ka mihi mai ahau ki a koutou because what it has done for Paraninini ki Waitotara and Mawhra and Whakatu has been to free them up from the economic constraints they suffered from after receiving peppercorn rents for so long. What an iniquitous totally unacceptable and scandalous regime! 
So on that very high note I say that one of the other significant things about the mutunga settlement is that the old people tukuna atu te mana ki nga uki nei a ratou ra e mau nga pukenga i runga ringaringa kia awhi atu kia mahi ai te huarahi tika. Ehara i te rangatahi he puru taitama hoki na koutou. No reira tena koutou tena koutou me ki penei: “Na wai te poipoi e poia mai te niko na” ara “Na hau nei e Te Ati Awa. Titi ai to raukura aue ka titi aue ka titi titi ka titi ka titi a aue ka pai ra.” Ka rauna i te Whare tena koutou tena koutou kia ora mai tatou katoa. 
[ 
give the authority to these descendants who have the skills but support them in their efforts. They are not youngsters but rather your young warriors. So greetings to you and greetings to you. Let me put it like this: “Who does that poi belong to that is beating towards me? Alas it is yours Te Ati Awa with your adornments of feathers oh how wonderful.” So to you around the House greetings to you and good health to all of us. 
]  
Bill read a first time. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee 
 for consideration that the committee report finally to the House on or before 27 October 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c) 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Post-9/11 means that we live in a very different global environment. We can no longer assume that New Zealand is safe from international criminal activities such as drug trafficking and terrorism which as we have all seen know no boundaries. The face of New Zealand’s travel and trade landscape is also changing. We are experiencing huge growth in the volume of people and goods crossing our border and with it increasing threats such as illegal migration identity fraud terrorism drugs and international organised crime. That makes it even more important that we move to target such risks effectively and with minimal disruption to legitimate trade and travel. 
Along with those changes the volume and sophistication of organised criminal activity is on the increase which means that our border control activities must evolve to keep pace. Major drug seizures such as the record $135 million drug bust in Auckland in May show that our country continues to be a target for such criminal groups and that we cannot afford to let our guard down. The New Zealand Customs Service represents a first line of defence in helping to keep our borders and our country safe. It is also responsible for helping to ensure the security of our exports and imports which protects New Zealand’s international trading reputation. 
The Government is committed to protecting our communities our people and our economy from those risks. This bill recognises areas of border management where strengthened legislation is needed to help achieve that. The reality of operating in a heightened global security environment means we also have greater national and international obligations around border security and our legislation needs to be strengthened to reflect that. A large number of Government departments have been consulted during the development of this bill and it has been carefully drafted to strike a balance between the need to protect our communities and the rights of individuals. The bill complies with the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993 as well as relevant international standards and obligations. 
The legislation also supports a whole-of-Government approach to better border management. It addresses limitations in current border powers by extending the range of options that customs officers have available to them in recognition of what is becoming an increasingly complex and changeable border environment. The strengthened legislation will also create better linkages between customs and other border enforcement agencies to ensure people or goods that pose a threat do not slip through the possible gaps in the system. 
That brings me to the content of the bill. This bill strengthens the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to provide for more effective and integrated border management by Government agencies. It also makes minor amendments of a mechanical nature and technical amendments to clarify the Act. 
 The bill’s key provisions include the ability for the Customs Service to deal with risk goods and evidence of offending. Section 175C substituted by clause 15 will help to keep New Zealand’s borders safer by enabling customs officers to refer to other border control agencies any potential risk goods or documents that may be of interest to those agencies. Being able legitimately to pass findings to another agency will have significant benefits for risk management and for the detection of offences. For example currently a customs officer cannot seize any evidence such as documents related to people-smuggling which means that that evidence may not be able to be used in a prosecution. Customs officers already have some powers to hold and refer dangerous goods and those powers will be extended to allow them to hold and refer risk goods to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
The second provision in section 175B substituted by clause 15 provides the ability for the Customs Service to retain or seize unlawful travel documents. It gives a customs officer during a search or examination the ability to seize and hold any unlawful travel documents and the equipment used to produce them. The provision recognises the growth of identity fraud and false travel documentation which is of increasing concern to international border control agencies. New Zealand customs officers regularly detect fraudulent identity documents at the border. The ability to search for and seize those false identity documents and the equipment used to produce them is important because such documents can be used to facilitate other types of criminal activity. If those items slip through they can compromise border security and undermine our passport system. Allowing those items to remain in circulation also exposes other countries to the same risks. 
Thirdly there is an obligation on persons to remain at their place of report in New Zealand until border processing is completed under new sections 32B and 32C inserted by clause 6. Those provisions require people travelling to or from New Zealand to remain at the relevant border processing area until they have been cleared. They also provide for the Customs Service to enforce that obligation if people do not comply. The bill also provides for the Customs Service to hold a person arriving in or departing from New Zealand for up to 4 hours in certain cases—for example if there is a threat to the public’s health or safety. Those provisions are important because they enable the Customs Service to refer to other interested agencies anyone who may require further immigration or additional border processing. They also cover cases in which there is reasonable cause to suspect that for example a person has an infectious disease is liable to be arrested or is wanted by police on suspicion of having committed an imprisonable offence. 
New section 32A inserted by clause 6 limits the use of electronic communication devices. That provision provides for limits to be imposed on the use of electronic communications devices in certain border processing areas which means that people may be asked not to use equipment such as their mobile phone while waiting in the primary processing area of an airport. The provision is modelled on Australian legislation that also limits the use of mobile phones in airports for border security reasons. The use of mobile phones or other electronic devices can be used to thwart law enforcement activity at the border. For example drug smugglers can warn associates of impending detection or arrange the destruction of evidence. Mobile phones with cameras can also be used to record images that can later be used to target or threaten officers. It is crucial that we prevent any attempts to thwart customs officers’ work at borders; otherwise we risk threats getting through. However travellers will still be able to use their mobile phones in most parts of airports—for example in those areas used immediately after their arrival and before they reach customs booths. 
New section 168A inserted by clause 14 provides the ability for a customs officer to immediately detain and search a person when executing a search warrant and to seize any dangerous items. Although the Customs Service already has the authority to search a person at the border or during the execution of a search warrant people can currently request to appear before a reviewer before a search can proceed. Because customs officers’ work can place them in dangerous situations the ensuring of their personal safety is crucial. For example when officers are executing a search warrant of a building as part of a drugs investigation they may need to search a person immediately for dangerous items such as firearms or knives. 
There are catch-all export controls for goods with an inappropriate military end use. The bill provides for the ability to impose controls on the export of catch-all goods. Those are goods that are in everyday use but that may be intended for an undesirable purpose such as the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction or of chemical weapons. New Zealand has international obligations to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems and many countries already have export controls in place to curb the spread of those devices. It is important for New Zealand’s international reputation particularly as a trading partner to implement such controls yet we are one of a small number of countries that do not impose export controls over catch-all goods. 
There is a provision to enable data matching with the Ministry of Social Development. Since 1991 the Customs Service has regularly provided passenger information to the Ministry of Social Development for the detection of people who leave for or return from overseas while receiving a benefit. The information is compared with the ministry’s database of beneficiaries in order to detect those who have received financial assistance to which they are not entitled. The bill extends the existing provision in the principal Act which authorises the Customs Service to supply data to now include student allowances. 
In conclusion I say that the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) is important legislation that recognises that New Zealand’s trade and travel landscape has changed and is continuing to change and that we must move to keep pace with it. Increasing threats to our communities through terrorism international organised crime drugs identity fraud and other problems mean that we need strong effective legislation and integrated border management in order to deal with those risks at the front line. These amendments have been carefully drafted to recognise the interests of both the Government and the community in effective border management and the rights of people to travel and conduct legitimate trade across borders. This legislation affirms this Government’s commitment to a vibrant economy to strong safe communities and to the protection of our national identity and way of life. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). We will be supporting this bill going to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but with some reservations. As the Minister has stated the bill gives the Customs Service a better ability to deal with false and fraudulent travel documents and that has to be a good thing. Its origins are in the response to the 9/11 event in the US and other terrorist activity around the world. Therefore we would be foolish not to look at what can be done with regard to detecting risks and enforcing our customs law in line with other laws around the Western World. But I cannot help wondering whether this Government has missed an opportunity—a much-stated opportunity—to build better relationships with the US and with other Western nations around the world. 
The US has on many occasions offered the hand of friendship to this Government with regard to designing and supplying modern technology in the detection of not only criminal activity with regard to terrorism but also with regard to biosecurity and to the best of my knowledge thus far this Government has bitten that kind hand and not accepted it. I ask the Minister and the officials who will be examining this bill in the select committee to look closely at what is on offer internationally and to take full advantage of whatever that technology may be. I understand through some of my contacts in the US in relation to this matter that there have been occasions when offers to install some sophisticated equipment such as X-ray equipment that can detect in a container biomass down to the size of a matchstick have been turned down on the basis that the equipment would be too sensitive and may therefore create too many difficulties for our customs officers and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers to be able to carry out that work. I ask the Government to please take full advantage of the opportunity it has had presented to it. Given its tardy performance the last time it looked at reforms in the principal Act I ask it to do something sensible in the process of passing this bill. 
I have been informed that during the recent Aer Lingus strike New Zealand Customs Service officers at Auckland airport were instructed not to target South American passport holders for immigration purposes or for compliance with immigration laws because of the difficulty and cost of obtaining tickets back to South America. I wonder whether that is true; I do not know. But if it is true it is amazing that we now have before us a further amendment to the Customs and Excise Act tightening up the controls around passports when customs officers themselves are being told that the Customs Service simply does not have the capacity to cope with that situation at the moment and that they are to give it a once-over-lightly and hope that the problem will come right. 
Also the staff turnover particularly at Auckland airport is something this Government should be concerned about. The facilities at Auckland airport are and have been for a long time totally inadequate. That is a total indictment on this Government’s policy. The reason of course is that the airport is a commercial activity and it is better to rent the space out to shopkeepers or someone who will provide a higher return than the Government is prepared to pay. So it is all very well for the Government to front up to Parliament talking tough with regard to different changes to legislation— 
Colin King 
: Five years later. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —as my colleague says 5 years or some time after the problems were known about. It is all very well fronting up here with tough legislation but to not provide the engine room the horsepower and the facilities that are needed to carry it out does ring a little hollow. 
Modern technology can and should help in this regard. The Minister knows that a lot of work needs to be done in relation to the synergy between customs officers and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry biosecurity officers and I ask why that work is not being carried out right now. I see this bill proposes a tightening-up of the powers of customs officers to seize products that may be deemed to be a biosecurity risk in the Customs and Excise Act but why has that not also happened in the Biosecurity Act where the reverse situation is the case? I would say to officials that they have the chance while the bill is going through the select committee to look at some of the work that could be done there and it would be churlish and short-sighted not to do so. 
The bill allows for the collection of duties on the importation of alcohol and I think that is probably a good thing. My understanding about the origins of that provision is that proprietors of liquor outlets in Auckland or wherever they may be have all the members of the whanau coming through the airport and buying up large quantities of duty-free liquor and then presenting it on the proprietor’s shelf in a few days’ time. If that is the case and if that is the purpose of this provision then I say to the Minister that it is a good thing and we should get on with fixing up that situation. 
The bill also prohibits the use of communications computing equipment in suitably signposted customs areas and this relates to an issue of grave concern. We know about the massive growth in the use of the P drug and the agents used in the production of that drug namely the methamphetamine imports that have gone on and the various carriers involved in the transmission of that drug. We also know that the use of modern technology has played a key role in that happening. As the Minister said it is a good thing to be able to stop carriers communicating with others who are coming on a later plane or who are farther down the line of the customs queue to tell them that the dogs are not on that the number of staff is light at the moment that three planes have arrived at once or that now might be a good time to try to sneak though. So the bill addresses that issue. 
I now bring the House’s attention to the work that has been done by the Law Commission which is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Palmer a former Prime Minister of this House. The commission has some major concerns around the legal term “forfeiture”. I share those concerns and when the select committee looks at the detail of that provision it should probably ask members of the Law Commission in so committee members can hear what the commission has to say. This is a very comprehensive report. In essence it states that the legal term may not best fit what the legislation intends and what the Government is trying to achieve by passing it. The report basically states that we need to focus upon developing a framework that best achieves an appropriate balance between the necessary powers of the executive and fairness to the individuals involved in importing or exporting goods. It states that in doing so the concepts of reasonableness and reasonable limits which are the tests to consider under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are encompassed in the considerations but are not explicitly analysed in terms of the rights of jurisprudence. 
To the average lay people out there that may not make a lot of sense but I know from reading the detail of the bill it basically means that by forfeiting something to the Crown the ownership is transferred to the Crown and that that may not be necessary while the investigation is going on. A different wording could provide a better way forward and I ask once again please that that suggestion should be listened to. It is always difficult when we are passing laws like this—with a very sound objective—to get the balance right and this may be one area where we have got it slightly out of line. 
We need to look carefully at the duty of care in relation to goods that have been confiscated. I have received several complaints about goods that have been confiscated—in particular about nursery stock when genuine importers have wanted to bring in something new. The importers are happy to pay and to go through the proper process of biosecurity but they find by the time they have got to the end of that process that because of various aspects of current law the stock they have imported has been destroyed through unnecessary delay or because the customs office itself is constricted by the legal terminology that applies to it. The officials no doubt will have a view on that and during the select committee process I hope that some of those things are given a fair hearing. 
Further and finally I say that the bill does not go far enough in regard to synergising those known areas of comparison we have between Biosecurity New Zealand—the No. 1 agency in respect of protecting New Zealand’s shores and more so in view of a potential terrorism strike—and the Customs Service. Both services have duplication that needs to be addressed and here is an opportunity to do that. National supports this bill going to the select committee. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and I recognise the support of National members conveyed by the previous speaker. I have just a couple of points. Clearly the September 11 event has provoked new requirements in the modern world—new requirements around travel security and protection. To traverse some of those things would be hackneyed and is unnecessary in this House but I do say we have discovered that smarter technology tends to produce smarter crimes which in turn require smarter legislation. I think that this bill is a measured and constructive response to border control issues for New Zealand. We have recently seen improvements in passports for example and a large part of those improvements has been occasioned by those smarter crimes in the forging of fraudulent identities and by people trying to enter this country in other guises. 
I also mention the fact that with the increased protections necessary for the New Zealand community—which is what border protection is all about—comes the need to balance human rights and the right of people to move in a way that is free and without hindrance but is without threat to people in the New Zealand community. So constant vigilance is required as the world situation changes and has changed because this debate is always about balancing provisions for human rights with provisions required for the protection of communities and inhabitants in New Zealand. In fact it is about balancing two sets of human rights. 
I think that this bill has the balance right. There are increased powers—and I will talk about those briefly in a moment. But I think the balance is right and certainly it will be up to the select committee to look at this bill and ensure that the kind of balance in it is a modern balance. We should ensure that we are not simply harking back to one extreme or another that might have characterised the debate in the past where there would have been an excess of emphasis either on individual human rights or on police authority—or in this case on border control authority. 
Because some of the provisions in this bill are modelled on Australian legislation I would just like to give as a bit of an illustration an example of my own experience last weekend on returning from a conference in Malaysia via Australia where I saw provisions that are very similar to those in the bill being applied. I was impressed. Certainly the control over mobile phone usage before getting through border control was enforced. A passenger getting off the flight I was on proceeded to use his mobile phone—I am sure for quite innocent purposes—but he was told quite quickly that he had to cease doing so. 
 The other thing I found of great interest—it was kind of like a field trip I suppose—was that I was randomly selected to be searched for explosives on the way through. I thought I was not somebody who might normally fit the profile; however it was a random test to make sure the process was working. I found the test neither invasive nor very inconvenient and I was interested to see what happened and how the border control personnel in Australia conducted that exercise. At no point did I ever feel that my human rights were being infringed. I thought it was a good process and at the end of it I said to the border control personnel that I had been interested to see how the process worked and how it was conducted. 
The kinds of things provided for in this bill—as the Minister said in her introductory speech—go to the questions of national security national identity the protection of the New Zealand community and the maintenance of New Zealand’s international obligations in line with other countries’ measures. I imagine that a number of submissions will come to the select committee on this bill. I hope that the balance of the bill is maintained in the discussions during the course of the select committee process and I look forward to this measure becoming legislation in due course. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the call on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). The overarching purpose of this legislation is to enhance border security. That is a noble purpose. The National Party being of noble purpose and noble mind will support this legislation going through to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but—as foreshadowed by my colleague Mr Ardern—with some severe reservations. We have learnt that in dealing with this Government the devil is in the detail. We will not be satisfied that the bill will do what it purports to do until the select committee has gone through it clause by clause in such a way as to satisfy us that it will do what the Government reports it will do. 
We in the National Party will look to Mr Ardern to give us advice on these matters because he is generally acknowledged as the best advocate in New Zealand for tougher biosecurity measures. So we will be taking our lead from him. National will need to be convinced that the cost of what the Government is proposing to do has gone through a very rigorous cost-benefit analysis because this Government has a very worthy reputation for passing legislation at any cost then asking taxpayers to pay for it despite the fact that it has already overtaxed them to the tune of about $9 billion. 
The Minister Nanaia Mahuta in her introductory remarks went through and made some summary points of what the bill will do. I will go through some of those points in a little more detail. The first point she touched on was that the bill gives the Customs Service better ability to deal with false and forged travel and identity documents. I will come back to that point if time permits. It prohibits the use of communications or computing equipment in suitably signposted customs areas. My colleague Mr Ardern has already touched on that point but I want to flesh out an example or two. It prohibits the export of goods or publications relating to terrorist acts or to strategic uses that are contrary to New Zealand’s strategic interests; so it goes on. 
Most people will be forgiven for thinking that these authorities already exist in other statutes because heaven forbid it has already been 5 years since September 11. Most countries already embraced these security of border controls 4 years ago. This Government is now standing up and saying: “Aren’t we beauties because now we’re doing it too?”. Well I say to the Government that it is too little too late. 
I turn my attention specifically to new section 32A inserted by clause 6 which states that the use of electronic communication devices is prohibited in “any Customs place or Customs controlled area …” if there is a sign prohibiting the use of such devices or if a customs officer requires a person not to use or to stop using such devices. The question I posed when I read this new section was why. Some examples have been offered. The most convincing answer I heard came from Mr Ardern and there is no surprise in that. He has pointed out to us that the custom of using decoys is now starting to be employed in this country. By way of explanation it means that a flight coming in from Sydney for example at 4 o’clock may have a decoy person on board who is running reconnaissance—casing the joint if you like—for the person who is coming in on the flight that is due at 4.30. He or she will look at the customs officers in action and determine whether on that day they are being vigilant and looking at the X-ray machines or whether they are more engaged with texting their mates using their mobile phones or whether there are sniffer dogs in action—essentially whether it is a big risk to take. He or she will send a text or some form of communication to the next person saying: “Harry dump the goods. It’s not worth taking the risk today.” 
 So we agree with getting on top of that but it also begs the question that I certainly could not find the answer to in the body of the bill. That is what is the penalty for not obeying the instructions of the customs officer? I ask Mr Barker what happens if people turn their cellphones on when they are not meant to. I ask members to keep in mind that if there is a penalty the reward for running drugs into this country is very high so risk versus reward is such that we would have to make sure there were very stiff penalties indeed. Of course the question about the cost of implementation which I have already touched on is not looked at by this bill at all and the select committee will have a job to do there. The question also needs to be answered about who pays. 
I move now to new section 32C inserted by clause 6 which “authorises a Customs officer to direct a person who arrives in or departs”—and that is the point I want to make in a moment—“from New Zealand to stay for up to 4 hours in a border processing area if the officer reasonably suspects that the person …” and there follows a list of reasons why an officer may do that. 
John Carter 
: The Minister’s here now. We’ll get a real answer. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister is here so I am sure when he takes a call he can answer some of these questions. In fact he is the same Minister who on 30 March when I was mounting an argument in the debate on the courts and criminal procedures legislation said it was impossible to collect all fines at the border because that would unnecessarily delay the travelling public. But here—3 months later—because it is now convenient and maybe the Government’s voting base is not being attacked the Government is saying that people can be held up for 4 hours and that is OK. I think it is OK if the travelling public is at risk but I think it is also OK to detain people if they owe fines or reparations to fellow New Zealanders. So I see some hypocrisy in the argument that is being put forward by the Government on this bill. 
Clause 8 amends section 56 and essentially deals with the prevention of terrorism. Of course we agree with the prevention of terrorism including bioterrorism. But the only way to get on top of this issue is by building relationships so that information can be shared and access gained to it. Most of the information we want in advance surveillance comes from what the National Party calls “our good friends in America” whom the Labour Party and its cohorts do not respect at all. This is an issue that is deeply concerning. In building those relationships I ask whether anyone in this House can really argue that when Winston Peters the Minister of Foreign Affairs attacked a senior US senator—and potentially the next President of the United States—he was really trying to develop relationships that would enable New Zealand to have access to information that may protect fellow citizens. Clause 8 bans the export of dangerous goods and I reckon that Winston Peters—under this legislation—is going nowhere soon. That is the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario of course is that he will be detained at the airport for up to 4 hours every time he tries to leave the country. 
Finally I touch on the issue of travel documents. Clause 15 inserts a new section 175B and “provides Customs officers with express authority to retain or seize unlawful travel documents.” Under this legislation officers will now have that authority. I have to say I thought they did and the travelling public and the rest of New Zealand probably also thought they did. If it is so important why the heck was it not done 4½ years ago when September 11 happened? We now have a laggard Government trying to come through the back door to mop up things it should have addressed a long long time ago. 
As I have said already the National Party—being of noble purpose—will support this legislation going through to the select committee but I forewarn the House that we will put it under very serious scrutiny. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the referral of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) to a select committee. The bill has some good things in it and some other things that the select committee will have to scrutinise a bit more fully—for example the extra powers that are being granted to customs officers to detain people and also the exchange of information between the Customs Service database and the Ministry of Social Development’s database. 
I want to talk particularly about a good extension of powers here: the ones that the Minister mentioned to control the export of strategic goods or goods for strategic uses. As the Minister said we have been a little behind some other countries in controlling the export of strategic goods and it is good that the bill contains a definition of “strategic use”. It goes from the lowest level of goods that may be civilian in their use but have military applications up a step to those that have an intended military use and up to a higher—and more dangerous—level of goods being used in the development production or deployment of biological chemical or nuclear weapons. Of course the legislation ties in with our New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 in prohibiting the export of strategic goods related to nuclear weapons. 
I want to particularly talk about the debate that has happened this year over Rakon’s export of crystal oscillators that have military uses. Those crystal oscillators are in shells and missiles and are tied in with Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance devices; they are part of those guidance devices. Under the definition of “strategic use” in this bill we could control and prevent the export of some of those crystal oscillators which are not going to be used for civilian purposes but for military purposes. It means that we would not have another situation like the one we had before where the Government apologised for Rakon’s export of those goods. 
On 15 June Phil Goff issued a press statement that the Government was “satisfied that based on information Rakon has provided the crystal oscillators Rakon exports are not covered by the Strategic Goods List. They therefore do not require an export permit.” He said: “For electronic components of guidance and navigation equipment such as crystal oscillators to be covered by the Strategic Goods List they must be ‘specially designed’ for military use. This means that they have unique properties distinguishing them for a predetermined military use.” Well under the definition of “strategic use” in new section 56(2A) in clause 8 that is no longer the case because paragraph (d) includes the words: “may have military applications”. As Minister Goff admitted at the time the crystal oscillators are used for military as well as civilian purposes. 
If we then go up a level of seriousness in terms of strategic use we find that is what is defined in paragraph (d) of that clause as something “intended for military use” I think it is true that Rakon developed certain of its crystal oscillators to a military standard. As Rakon admitted in its own documents—emails that were reproduced in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 a month or two ago—Rockwell Collins a military subcontractor to the US Air Force gave Rakon hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop G-shock hardened crystal oscillators. Clearly they were for specific military use. The documents describe them as being guidance systems for smart shells for the United States military. 
Then if we go up the scale of strategic use we see items that may be used in the development production or deployment of nuclear weapons. In Rakon’s internal documents it admitted that under United States contracts it was developing nuclear-hardened crystal oscillators that had to have a specification to operate at a depth of 135 metres. The House may exercise its mind as to what sort of weaponry may have to operate at a depth of 135 metres and the two things I can come up with are probably nuclear missiles in silos or nuclear missiles in a US nuclear submarine. If Rakon is developing crystal oscillators to those military specifications for use in actually launching a nuclear weapon or even a weapon that is not nuclear-tipped—a weapon that is used in a nuclear exchange perhaps to knock out nuclear weapons or missiles on the other side—then it would be contrary to this legislation that we are discussing today. So this is good legislation in that respect. 
New section 56(2B) in clause 8 allows the Government to move against people who export strategic goods where that is contrary to New Zealand’s interests. That is a very good bit to put in the legislation too. Clearly if Rakon is exporting crystal oscillators produced to a specific military standard under US military contract to be placed in US Air Force missiles or shells and if those are then used—as they are likely to be—in bombing places like Fallujah or Ramadi in Iraq given that our Government was against going into the Iraq war then clearly the oscillators are being used in ways contrary to New Zealand’s interests. So the law we are talking about today is good in that respect. We can even update that problem. We read in the papers over the last day or so that the United States is resupplying Israel with more missiles and weaponry. It may be that some of Rakon’s crystal oscillators will soon rain down upon the people of Lebanon via our export to the United States. 
Under new section 56(2E) in clause 8 people are liable if they are reasonably aware of the uses of their exports. Rakon unfortunately engaged in a cover-up when the debate first started around its crystal oscillators last year. It did not tell the truth in relation to what was happening. When asked by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 Rakon said it “has not developed any technology specifically for the US military.” and “No technology has been specifically developed by Rakon for use in smart bombs or missiles”. When asked whether the crystal oscillators could be used as such the sales manager Justin Maloney said: “We don’t know for certain one way or the other.” That was a lie as was exposed in the documents the  
New Zealand Herald  
put out earlier this year with all the internal emails from Rakon in them. I think that under this legislation certainly the Government could move more strongly against Rakon in a way that it has not moved previously. 
I will finish off by talking about the additional powers of the Customs Service to detain people for up to 24 hours. That provision should be scrutinised in the select committee. When detention concerns infectious diseases or breaches of the Biosecurity Act it may be best not to let people just wander through the green exit and to have some powers there. But the extent of those powers is a matter we will discuss in the committee. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I held back on taking the call hoping the Greens would take a call and add to the debate. But if there is anybody listening who took note of Keith Locke’s contribution I am not sure he or she would understand what we are actually debating. I say to those people who may still be listening that we are actually discussing the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). 
I do not intend to take a long call but there are a couple of points I want to make. First of all I am pleased the National Party is supporting this bill because New Zealand First most certainly is. I listened with interest when National Party members said they were going to scrutinise it thoroughly in the select committee after only a minute or so earlier stating they could not find any penalties in the bill for using a mobile phone. Well the penalties are outlined clearly in the bill under clause 18(2) which states: “Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1000.” So I urge the National Party members that if they are going to scrutinise this bill thoroughly at the select committee they should at least read it first. 
The second point I want to make is around the flippant remarks by Brian Connell about the Rt Hon Winston Peters which caused me some concern. Let me say to those members over there that I will take a wager with any one of them that by the end of this term of Parliament the relationship between the USA and New Zealand will be far better than it has been for many a year. That will be totally as a result of Winston Peters’ efforts as Minister of Foreign Affairs. If any of them are prepared to take a wager I am up for it. I and my colleagues know firsthand that Winston’s dealings with American officials and politicians and what have you are top-notch. He is highly regarded. He has effectively been in the job for only 10 minutes and he is already getting the degree of respect for his efforts that we should be showing him here. When I say “we” I mean Parliament here. He is travelling the world representing this country and doing a damn good job. 
Anybody who has any doubts about this bill being required and about our border controls being upgraded should only have to watch the television programme  
Borderline 
 which is on television on a Monday evening I think and he or she will know that we are way behind the eight ball and that much in this bill has to be implemented and implemented pretty promptly. 
I conclude by mentioning Maryan Street’s reference to a clash of human rights. This type of legislation puts human rights on the back burner. There are three main objectives that we must have and that this legislation must target: first safe travel for the public; second properly authorised and administered entry and exit for the public; and third a safe working environment for the officials—the customs officers who do the job. From time to time that will conflict with innocent people and with the human rights of innocent members of the public. It will inconvenience them. I say to this House that that has to take second priority to getting this environment and these conditions correct. It is absolutely important that we control our borders that we know who is coming and who is going and that those people follow the rules of this land. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 National supports the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) going forward. The needs that this bill deals with have been well spoken about. It deals with the way we find New Zealand today. I take on board not only the comments made in the House this afternoon but also those comments that highlight the risks we face today in a modern New Zealand in a modern world with its idiosyncrasies and variations from yesteryear when we were living a long long way away from our markets and from other nations by virtue of distance. With distance now being so easy to cover in a short time we are confronted with such things as terrorism biosecurity incursions by all manner of means people-smuggling and of course ever-increasing amounts of drug trafficking. So it is very very important that we have the appropriate balance in regard to our customs and excise legislation to empower those people at the coalface to be able to deliver what we expect of them what New Zealanders expect of them and what our trading partners throughout the world expect of a first-class economy. 
It has been reported on previous occasions that New Zealand is a soft touch and a launching post for drug operations and possibly for people-smuggling. I do not know of any reported cases to make me confident that is true but the occurrence of such reports is so regular that we would be naive to take them for granted. This bill is certainly long overdue when we consider what prompted and pre-empted it. Given the events in New York on September 11 it is very much a concern that we have taken as long as this to do something. 
I come from a rural background. I sensed that those people who spoke in the House this afternoon were conscious of the individual traveller. No doubt when we think about customs and excise we think of those sorts of people because they are the people we encounter when we come and go from this country but it is significant that those people also have responsibilities under the Biosecurity Act. That part of the functions of customs and excise is an important aspect of future-proofing our economy. When we consider the trade and tourism now coming out of Asia—and that will only increase—we realise it is significant that some of the concerns for our economy come from that area. This nation is dependent on its land-based industries. If we ever have the problem of foot-and-mouth disease in this country under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry model it would cost our economy something in the region of $10 billion which would substantially affect the living standards of this nation. We are also very concerned about the issues in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy which could also affect our economy. There is an ongoing conflict between on the one hand the need of our country to attract tourists and give them a first-class time and on the other hand the need to maintain our platinum level of food safety for the agricultural exports that we distribute throughout the world. There are obvious conflicts there and we hope the bill addresses those. We are putting a tremendous amount of faith in this legislation. 
The bill is highly technical and it will require keen eyes and full attention from whichever select committee it goes to. We do not want to miss this opportunity to do something that brings us up to speed if not to take the opportunity to move us forward and be a leader when it comes to the issues that this bill endeavours to deal with. A point I take from the member across the House there is that with smarter technology comes smarter crooks. It is something we have to be mindful of. Again we have to do our utmost to guard against that. 
Among the issues around this bill is that it is deemed to cut down on the need to present documentation on inward journeys. That is something that really does interest me—that whilst we are continually reinforcing ourselves with a view to protecting ourselves against false documentation and suchlike we also trying to find that balance whereby we can fast-track things and make sure that people do not have to comply with an overload of documentation. 
The issue around the 4 hours I am perfectly comfortable with. I think National would be very very supportive that whatever was done was done with a view to ensuring that we do not allow ourselves to be boxed into a corner by laws such that we cannot expedite whatever necessary actions are required in the event of frontline customs staff being aware that there is a major issue but not being able to do anything about it. There are feelings and fears around the pandemics that will eventually strike us. It is very appropriate that with the powers we have at our disposal through this bill we will do our utmost to retain and isolate those infected people in what is deemed to be the best interests not only of ourselves but also of the infected people whom we consider ourselves to be responsible for. 
The bill goes through a number of things. As a wee nation of 4 million people we have to be quite aware that our responsibilities far outweigh our size. We have equal responsibility for ensuring that we carry out our responsibilities for global security in a very sensible way that we do our utmost to detect terrorist and criminal activity and that we do so in a very very professional manner. 
One point that I feel needs to be fleshed out considerably—and I would encourage the select committee to do so as well—is the way in which customs officials are able under the Biosecurity Act to control and confiscate any goods that are deemed to be a risk. From that point of view it would be very appropriate for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers also to be able to operate under the Customs and Excise Act. That has not been put forward in the bill in its present state and I would recommend quite strongly that when this bill comes before the select committee it gives due consideration to that. 
When we stop to think about it we realise there is a lot of work to be done. It is a very technical bill and on that basis it is very important that we do not allow this opportunity to slip away. Unauthorised goods would be a far more appropriate title than undeclared biosecurity risk goods because that would cover up the situation whereby the comment is made that something is undeclared or inappropriately documented. There will be opportunities to do that when this bill goes before the select committee. 
Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I look forward to it progressing and to it coming back to the House to be debated in a far more robust manner. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) is a very important bill and National has pleasure in supporting it. We should never compromise on our safety or security. Our borders must be secure in terms of biosecurity—as we have heard from previous speakers. We should never compromise on the importance of biosecurity nor on the safety of our travellers or ourselves as we travel and of our visitors who come to New Zealand. It was interesting when I spent some time at Auckland International Airport in 2000—and I know that the senior whip did also—then in 2003 to see the changes that had occurred in the security arrangements of that company and what was required. So with that in mind National has great pleasure in supporting this bill. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.