Volume 634 Week 26 - Thursday 14 September 2006 
Volume 634 Week 26 - Thursday 14 September 2006 
[Volume:634;Page:5487] 
Thursday 14 September 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United Kingdom—Deputy Speaker House of Commons 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons United Kingdom is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left. 
The Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will begin a 3-week adjournment. When the House resumes on 10 October priority will be given to the third reading of the Securities Legislation Bill the remaining stages of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill and the Communications Legislation Bill and the first readings of the Succession (Homicide) Bill and the Arbitration Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day. 
Questions to Ministers 
Speech from the Throne—Political Integrity of Parliament and Electoral Process 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the statement in the Speech from the Throne in 1999 that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes; by keeping our promises—unlike National in the 1990s. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the final report of the Auditor-General finds that the Labour Party has unlawfully appropriated funds from the leader’s budget will she now guarantee to the New Zealand public that she will follow the advice of the Auditor-General given in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on Sunday last week that the remedy is to reimburse it; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Labour Party has consistently taken the position that it acted within the rules as they were understood at the time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When she states as she has done on numerous occasions: “That is why I say political parties are entitled to fairness consistency and natural justice.” is she suggesting that she has no confidence in the Auditor-General who in simply carrying out his statutory obligations discovered the outrageous rort of the taxpayer fund by the Labour Party to pay for the $446000 pledge card? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister is saying that the pledge card was essentially the same as the National Party’s pledge pamphlet and advertising put out in 2002 that the rules were essentially the same and that if one was outside the rules then the other was outside the rules. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports that during the year 2003 the Parliamentary Service Commission met on numerous occasions to discuss the rules because there was dissatisfaction with the 2002 election and the consequence of that was a reaffirmation of those rules with an addition to state that party leaders and members would be responsible for that expenditure and a commitment to stick to those rules; if she has not why has not the Deputy Prime Minister handed that information on to her? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Contrary to yet another factual mistake by the Opposition the Deputy Prime Minister was not on the group that carried out that survey. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh yes he was. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No he was not. The Deputy Prime Minister has Mr Burton representing him on the Parliamentary Service Commission and has done so since the 1999 election. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has she seen the statement today from Michael Morris chair of Transparency International saying: “By using money intended for legitimate parliamentary purposes to help get votes and then to avoid the issue of culpability brings the law the people who make the law and the system that generates the law into public contempt.”; if so what is her response to Mr Morris and Transparency International? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My response is to congratulate them on also observing that setting up front organisations through which funds can be channelled in excess of legal limitations or smuggling hidden slush funds into party coffers is to be deplored. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has she been party to any discussion about the future use of her Labour leader’s office funding and can she assure us that the 2008 pledge card will not be funded from that source? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure the Prime Minister has been party to discussions about the use of the Labour leader’s fund. No decision has been taken yet as to whether the Labour Party will issue a 2008 pledge card. The one thing that is sure is that if we do we will keep our promises. If National does and by any chance it gets elected it will break them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of “restoring public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process” what is the Prime Minister’s view in respect of a political party using its legal advisers to advise an outside third party on how it might collude to avoid the outside third party’s costs being included in the political party’s election and campaign expenses? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think given the matter that is being referred to the first thing to be said is that it does not meet the fundamental standards of Christian morality. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports suggesting that New Zealand First has used considerable amounts of that taxpayer funding for its election campaign activities— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect that is not in the purview of any Minister and the deputy leader of the National Party for the time being knows that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question was phrased in terms of reports and this is a very general question relating to public confidence and integrity. [ 
Interruption 
] The member has not finished the question? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I was asking the Prime Minister whether she has seen any reports suggesting that New Zealand First used considerable amounts of that sort of funding for its election campaign and did any of those reports include the line: “Don’t worry. We can fix it.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the latter point New Zealand First is helping the Government to fix it and particularly is fixing National. On the former point I am aware of reports that every party in this House has used that fund for similar purposes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the issue of restoring public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process what is to be made of a party’s denial of knowledge and understanding of and involvement with a third party outside this Parliament spending $1.2 million in a campaign to assist the political party inside this Parliament when its legal advisers were the same people? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that literally meets the definition of the term “cover-up”. 
Light Armoured Vehicles—Suitability 
2.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Is he confident that the purchasing of 105 light armoured vehicles has resulted in value for money for New Zealand’s defence needs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes. The Army advises me that the vehicles have met all operational expectations and in fact it is very pleased with their performance. 
Ron Mark 
: Why is one of the $7 million - light armoured vehicles purchased by the Government currently gathering dust in a warehouse in Canada for use by the manufacturer as a “reference vehicle”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am advised that that is a standard practice. We have one of our light operational vehicles the Pinzgauer also with the manufacturer for the same reason. 
Shane Jones 
: What reports has he seen concerning the level of protection provided to soldiers in a combat situation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In regard to the light armoured vehicles they provide a very high level of protection. Although we fortunately have not had to engage those vehicles in combat the Stryker vehicle which is the US equivalent has been involved in combat in Iraq. The commander of the brigade there stated that in 10 suicide bomb attacks on the vehicles not a single soldier’s life limb or eyesight was lost. The US Army Chief of Staff General Schoomaker has described the Stryker—which I repeat is the same as the light armoured vehicle in most respects—as the most survivable vehicle in Iraq today. 
Ron Mark 
: What great difference is there particularly given his last answer between the standard Canadian light armoured vehicle and the New Zealand variant that justifies the New Zealand taxpayer funding a $7 million reference model for the Canadian manufacturers which have produced thousands of almost identical vehicles in the past? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I pointed out before it is a standard procedure to leave one particular vehicle with the manufacturer for testing and other purposes. I could also point out to the member that we in fact have 105 light armoured vehicles. Because they are not currently deployed overseas that vehicle would not be needed in use in New Zealand today. 
Shane Jones 
: How have the New Zealand light armoured vehicles compared in joint exercises with Australian light armoured vehicles? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We deployed a company group of LAVIIIs to exercise with the Australians in northern Australia at the end of 2004. The Australian brigade commander described the LAVIII compared with his own vehicles as his vehicle of choice. They proved to be more capable than the Australian vehicles—both the M113s and the ASLAV2s. They were quieter faster better protected and had better gunnery systems. So all round they were a superior vehicle. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the decision to leave one of the light operational vehicles with the manufacturer in Canada—and now as we know one of the light armoured vehicles as a reference vehicle—been taken for other prior or existing Defence Force purchase agreements; for example is the Government planning to leave one of the NH90 helicopters or one each of the three different types of vessels comprising Project Protector with their manufacturers and do we have a stray Anzac frigate lying around somewhere that we do not know about? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is a little hard to take that question seriously. Of course one would not leave one of two frigates or even one of eight NH90s with the manufacturer. In this case the LAVIII given that it is not in immediate need of use in New Zealand is considered by the New Zealand Defence Force to be more useful in Canada for testing purposes than in New Zealand. 
Shane Jones 
: In what sort of circumstance would the LAVIII be deployed overseas? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think everybody in this House would prefer New Zealand not to be involved in the level of combat where an LAVIII would be required. But one buys one’s defence equipment to cater for a worst-case scenario. If we were in a situation such as we were in Bosnia back in the 1990s we would find the LAVIIIs to be of critical importance because of their mobility and their ability to do convoy escorts. If the situation were to seriously deteriorate—and we hope it will not—in Timor Afghanistan or the Solomon Islands then the LAVIIIs would obviously be applicable in any one of those environments. 
Ingram Report—Review of Immigration Matters 
3.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statement on Tuesday 12 September that he has reviewed the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes. As I said then a number of immigration matters are covered in the Ingram report which I have read on a number of occasions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When reviewing the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report what information did he find had been provided to the Ingram inquiry by Ross Robertson MP regarding the involvement of Taito Phillip Field with Thai national Mr Sunan Siriwan in Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I would prefer to take that question on notice and reply to the member when I have checked the report further. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Minister had in fact reviewed the immigration matters what steps has he taken to ascertain why Ross Robertson MP did not volunteer information to the Ingram inquiry yet in August 2006 he freely offered information to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that he had socialised with both Taito Phillip Field and Mr Siriwan in Samoa in March 2005 and that he had the impression Mr Siriwan was working for Mr Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It has been previously traversed in this House that a number of MPs briefly visited Mr Field’s home in Samoa and saw several Thai immigrants but did not have extensive conversations with them and were not briefed on their immigration status. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When reviewing the immigration matters involved what steps did he take to ascertain why Ross Robertson MP withheld information from the Ingram inquiry on Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Mr Siriwan in Samoa given that after confirming to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that he had the impression Mr Siriwan was working for Mr Taito Phillip Field in March 2005 Mr Robertson refused to deny that Taito Phillip Field told him that Mr Siriwan was working for him? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister replies I just note that the Minister is responsible for immigration matters but he is not responsible for the procedures and the taking of evidence in the inquiry. But I ask the Minister to address the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Further to your point I am responsible for neither the conduct of the Ingram inquiry nor the conduct of Ross Robertson MP—not that I have any doubts as to his integrity. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Minister has read the Ingram report several times as he has told this House can he confirm that Taito Phillip Field denied there was any arrangement for Mr Siriwan to work on his house in Samoa as reported in paragraph 77 of the Ingram report and that Mr Field’s evidence to the Ingram inquiry as recorded in paragraph 115 was that he was unaware of any financial support given to Mr Siriwan until June 2005 and that Ross Robertson MP held that information—which was materially relevant to the truth of Mr Field’s representations—yet refused to volunteer it to the Ingram inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is a longstanding convention that there is no such thing as proof by repeated assertion. Mr Robertson’s actions are not the responsibility of the Minister of Immigration nor is the conduct of the Ingram inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What does it say about the administration of the immigration portfolio under Labour when the Associate Minister’s private secretary makes four conflicting statements to the Ingram inquiry as to whether the Associate Minister knew of Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Thai nationals in Samoa prior to making his decision on their cases and that a senior Labour member of Parliament refused to volunteer information he held to that same inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Clearly members of this House are as bored with the member’s repeated questions— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not the point. Would the Minister please be seated. Would the Minister please address the question. I thought I had made it clear that answers and questions should be given directly without these asides. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Madam Speaker my apologies for the previous comment which I withdraw. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would have thought that a remark like that should be both withdrawn and apologised for. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Mapp; I have dealt with the matter. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: If it assists progress of the House in the previous sentence I both apologised and withdrew but the member may not have been listening. As we have already established Mr Ross Robertson is not the responsibility of the Minister of Immigration. The administration of the department it has already been established could have been improved in the sense that information should have been provided in a demonstrable way to the then Associate Minister which it was not. 
Food Miles—Environmental Impact 
4.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What evidence if any has he received with respect to the concept of food miles that suggests the further food has to travel to the market the worse its impact on the environment? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The evidence I have seen totally debunks the concept that the distance food travels provides any meaningful measure of the amount of energy used in its production and its impact on the environment. A study just produced by Lincoln University looks at the total energy use and carbon dioxide emissions associated with farm production and transport to the United Kingdom. It concludes that for our major export products the energy used in production and transport of New Zealand products is a fraction of the energy used for equivalent goods produced in the United Kingdom. 
Dianne Yates 
: Can the Minister give some specific examples of the relative energy use involved in equivalent products from either country? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the United Kingdom for example uses twice as much energy per tonne of milk solids produced than New Zealand uses even taking into account the transport of those goods over 11000 miles. The energy used in producing lamb in the United Kingdom is four times higher than the energy used by New Zealand lamb producers even taking transport into account and for apples the New Zealand energy costs for production are 60 percent of those in the United Kingdom including the energy used in transport. That is why when we get this sort of advertising campaign in the United Kingdom—which is an attack on New Zealand products as not being environmentally sound—it is just so much rubbish. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that shipping uses less energy than many other forms of transport what role does the Minister expect to play in the development of a maritime action strategy following the Government’s apparent favourable response to the draft maritime transport strategy presented by the New Zealand Shipping Federation to the Minister of Transport given that sea transportation is essential to the trade of this island nation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Obviously the overwhelming bulk of New Zealand export produce is taken to the market by sea. The question that the member asked is in the responsibility of my colleague and benchmate the Minister of Transport but I am more than happy to be involved in any relevant activities. 
Sue Kedgley 
: If the Government is going to counter the growing international concern about food miles by arguing that New Zealanders are much more energy-efficient farmers will the Government—as part of that campaign—be encouraging farmers to convert to organic agriculture which is considerably more energy efficient than conventional farming given that a tiny 0.24 percent of our agricultural land is in organic farming; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Obviously organic products have their place in our export trade and some of them do very well. Equally clearly it is not practicable for the vast majority of New Zealand production to be organic. But I would like to tell the member that on current production techniques in each of our major export products to the United Kingdom the amount of energy utilised in both producing and transporting the goods to that market is only a fraction of the energy utilised in producing the same goods in the United Kingdom. I would hope that the Green Party and environmental groups would stand out against the sort of nonsense being portrayed in Europe and in the United Kingdom that misrepresents that fact to consumers. 
Dianne Yates 
: Why then has this question of food miles become an issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It has become an issue because if it is left unchallenged given our geographic location the food miles concept has the potential to threaten our food and beverage exports to the United Kingdom and to Europe—and of course a third of our food and beverage exports go to Europe. The question of food miles is being made an issue by some European producers and non-governmental organisations that have a vested interest in protectionism. New Zealand exports have been singled out as being bad for the environment in the sort of advertising campaign that I have shown to the House. That is why the studies carried out by Lincoln University which are done on an objective and scientific basis are so important; they actually demonstrate that New Zealand production is more environmentally friendly. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister accept that his argument around looking at the full embodied energy costs although something to be commended actually continues to leave New Zealand agricultural exporters at risk until New Zealand properly addresses the reality that New Zealand farming is relying on increasing amounts of energy and other imports particularly into dairy farming in many areas because of a massive drive towards intensification; issues that were raised so effectively by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in his report  
Growing for Good: Intensive Farming sustainability and New Zealand’s environment 
? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think our producers will always be looking for ways of producing in both more energy-efficient ways and more environmentally sensitive ways. That does not deny the fact that right now our agricultural production is produced in a more environmentally sensitive and far more energy-efficient manner than most of the countries that we are exporting to notwithstanding the distance that we have to transport our produce to the market. [ 
Interruption 
] If Gerry Brownlee wants to ask a question maybe he could be invited to take to his feet and do it formally rather than informally. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that if we had country-of-origin labelling of New Zealand food New Zealanders would be able to make sure they were buying locally produced energy-efficient New Zealand food; and why therefore did his Government veto a Food Standards Australia New Zealand - mandatory country-of-origin food labelling system which would have enabled New Zealanders to work out whether the food they are buying has been produced in an energy-efficient way in New Zealand or has travelled from the other side of the world and been produced in a much more energy-inefficient way as the Minister has been discussing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the member has missed the point of what I was saying. Actually the distance— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We all did. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Well if the member had listened then perhaps he would not have missed it. The point the member needs to take into account is that transportation costs for a product when it reaches its final market are only a small percentage of the overall energy costs. If we want an efficient way of measuring environmental impact we have to take into account all of those factors. New Zealand produce of course when it goes to the market is labelled as being made in New Zealand because we are proud of our overall clean and green image in the world. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister seems to have misunderstood my question. I was asking why we did not have mandatory country-of-origin labelling in New Zealand. We may very well have some exporters labelling their food as being from New Zealand but he did not seek to answer my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister—at great length actually—addressed his answers to the questions. I remind both those who ask questions and those who answer them that the Standing Orders do request that that is done succinctly. The Minister did address that question. 
Electricity Commission—Independence 
5.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Did the Government promise Roy Hemmingway that the Electricity Commission would be independent of the Government; if so why has this in Mr Hemmingway’s words “not turned out to be true”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister telling the House that the statement by Mr Hemmingway: “When I came to New Zealand three years ago I was promised that the Electricity Commission would be independent of the Government’s wishes.” is a lie? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am saying that the Electricity Commission is able to take its day-to-day decisions independently but it has always been bound to give effect to the Government policy statement. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm that last year Minister Trevor Mallard pressured the commission to seek alternatives to the Waikato line so as to deflect political pressure at the time of the election but that after the election Ministers pressured the commission to get on and approve the line; and is that blatant manipulation of the commission not just further evidence that this Government will break any law and bully any independent statutory officer to cling on to power? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No it is not. The Hon— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. We will hear the answer please so that the Minister does not have to repeat it. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No it is not. The Hon Trevor Mallard quite rightly directed the Electricity Commission to considers alternatives. This Government still supports that course. 
Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister respond to suggestions that he has stacked the board of the Electricity Commission in order to push through the Waikato upgrade decision? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I reject that suggestion too. The Government’s only appointment to the Electricity Commission in the last 3 years has been the very competent Hon Stan Rodger. His appointment stated he will not be participating in the Waikato upgrade decision. I also point out that his appointment—just like that of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger to the gas industry regulator—was uncontroversial. Finally it is also pertinent to remember that the four other commissioners who have served with Mr Hemmingway remain. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence that the decisions of the Commerce Commission involving hundreds of millions of dollars in relation to Vector will be able to be made independent of the Government when its fingerprints are all over the workings of the Electricity Commission? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Because the Commerce Commission has statutory independence from the Government—it is actually a bit different from the Electricity Commission in that regard. I further point out that the reality here is that once every 3 years someone in my position has to make a decision as to whether an electricity commissioner is appointed for a further 3 years. I made that decision because I decided it was unwise to appoint Mr Hemmingway for another term. I take responsibility for the decision and believe it to be the correct one. 
Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister respond to those who say that because he has not appointed Mr Hemmingway for a second term no one will want to chair the Electricity Commission? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The chair’s $300000 salary is substantially more than what a university professor is paid. I expect there will be significant interest in this prestigious role. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister—noting the importance of independent statutory offices like the Electricity Commission to the integrity of Government—initiate an independent inquiry into the very serious accusations made by Mr Hemmingway yesterday of interference of politicisation and of pressure from Ministers so that the public might know whether it is Mr Hemmingway or him who is telling the truth? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I will not. It is the responsibility of Governments around the world to appoint those who participate in and are chairs of regulators. That is all that has happened here. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by Mr Hemmingway yesterday—given that he was handpicked by Labour and given Mr Parker’s own statement that he has a “huge depth of knowledge of electricity issues”—on radio that Labour’s policies would drive up electricity prices unnecessarily and that the Government’s policies were a “confusing muddle”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Of course it is somewhat ironic that that member who has just resumed his chair actually opposed the creation of the Electricity Commission. We already know from the draft Electricity Commission decision that it will carve substantial costs from the Transpower proposal however it proceeds. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister retain any pretence that the Electricity Commission is independent of the Government—noting the importance of that—when the Government owns over $10 billion worth of electricity State-owned enterprises; and is not the Electricity Commission now just a poodle to be used as the Minister’s plaything? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No. The duty of the Electricity Commission is set out in law as being to give effect to the Government policy statement. 
Peter Brown 
: What is the Minister’s view on the assertion being made by some that in the interests of independence it would be better to dispense with the Electricity Commission entirely and to have its duties and functions undertaken by the Commerce Commission? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Government is looking at what the relative roles of the Electricity Commission and the Commerce Commission should be. It is however absolutely clear that more regulatory oversight is required for lines companies that are absolute monopolies—including Transpower—than was the case back in 1998 when they were left unregulated to plunder the country. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How was it fair for the Minister yesterday to justify sacking Mr Hemmingway on the basis of the tensions between the Electricity Commission and Transpower when the Government itself has been the cause of those tensions by pressuring the commission last year to kick the Waikato line project for touch during the election campaign and then post-election changing tack and pushing it as hard as it could; and is not Mr Hemmingway just being used as a scapegoat for Labour’s political shenanigans? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Not at all. The breakdown in the relationship between Transpower and the Electricity Commission at the most senior levels is something that neither organisation should be proud of. It was not caused by this Government but we will fix it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister seen any reports indicating that the Dr Nick Smith who has been asking the questions today is the same Dr Nick Smith who urged the Government to do something to resolve the issue of transmission supply into Auckland and that his benchmate Judith Collins is the same person who called on the Government to stop the transmission line upgrade into Auckland? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Not only are the statements of the Deputy Prime Minister untrue; they are also totally beyond the responsibilities of the Minister. I know he is a new member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Having listened to the question I say that there is responsibility as to whether the Minister does something. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am indeed aware of that history. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table a statement made by the Minister on 15 July 2006 that he was pleased with Mr Hemmingway’s performance and that Mr Hemmingway had in-depth expert knowledge of the electricity sector. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Whales and Dolphins—South Pacific Ocean 
6.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What initiative is the Government taking to protect whales and dolphins in the South Pacific Ocean? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Tomorrow in Noumea the Associate Minister of Conservation Mahara Okeroa will sign a memorandum of understanding on behalf of the New Zealand Government that will significantly increase the protection for whales and dolphins in our region. For the past 3 years Pacific nations through the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme have been working on the memorandum of understanding which commits signatories to work actively to protect whale and dolphin habitats. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What are the strengths of this new agreement? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: New Zealand is a leading conservation nation like the UK. This memorandum under the convention on migratory species provides an effective alternative to the International Whaling Commission for Pacific countries interested in pursuing whale and dolphin protection. A significant feature of it is that non-governmental organisations can now join providing a united voice on marine mammal issues. I just heard Judith Collins call out: “Boring!”. I support conservation; I thought that member would too. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take offence to that comment. I did not call it out and I do not find conservation boring even if that Minister is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you for clarifying that. That was not a point of order and it was also compounded by the member making a flippant statement. I remind members on all sides of the Chamber that when they are making points of order or when they are asking or answering questions they should stick to the point. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I understood that the member was clarifying that she had not made that statement and that she did not find the subject boring but found the Minister boring. If she is in fact asking for the Minister to withdraw his comment that she had called out “Boring!” then I would ask him to withdraw it so we can move on. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I do apologise. I thought that voice was unique but it clearly is not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you will just reply. I ask members to please be silent so we can move on. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
7.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I shall wait for Simon Power’s own colleagues to be quiet so that we can hear his supplementary question. 
Simon Power 
: Why has it taken his Government 7 years to address mental health screening for prison inmates when current assessment tools ask officers to observe whether new prisoners appear “ill or very sad” and “irrational or threatening” or is his talk of new assessment techniques an acknowledgment that inmates with mental health issues have previously fallen through the cracks? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As I have stated publicly the issue of mental health care within prisons is a very difficult one. There are issues about what are psychological problems and what are psychiatric problems. We are always moving to improve the level of care within the community and within our prisons for those people who have psychiatric and psychological problems. 
Simon Power 
: Does he agree that questions on inmate questionnaires such as: “How would you say you’ve been feeling in general since you arrived in prison?” “Is prison different from the way you thought it would be?” and “Is there anything in particular you are worried about?” are hardly the sorts of searching questions that cover the range of mental illnesses prisoners might suffer from? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I suggest that the member see a psychologist and ask him or her why those questions have been deemed the appropriate ones to ask prisoners when they first come into prison. We are always working through the processes in order to improve them wherever necessary. 
Simon Power 
: Are inmates arriving in public prisons screened by mental health professionals as they were at the Auckland Central Remand Prison when it was under private management or has the level of mental health expertise of those conducting the screening got less? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The level of screening within the corrections system has been consistent for some time now. We are currently working on methods of improving it and of identifying the needs of prisoners as they come into prison. 
Simon Power 
: Why can the Department of Corrections not say how many prisoners suffer from an acute mental illness or how many are taking medication for psychiatric conditions when presumably the department dispenses this medication? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Department of Corrections can accurately assess the medication going to prisoners. It is always very difficult to accurately assess the difference between a psychological problem and a psychiatric problem for prisoners. If that member cared to visit some of the prisons and find out for himself he would understand that we are dealing with very difficult and challenging people and we do our very best.  
Simon Power 
: Why has he not answered my written question of 1 month ago as to whether any of the four new prisons have plasma or LCD screen TVs and when can I expect an answer? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Because I do not know and—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is verging on a relapse of previous behaviour. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I would expect there would not be any other than the exceptional one that might be for treatment or programmes within the prison system. We do not provide TVs for prisoners in the New Zealand corrections system. 
Johnsonville Railway Corridor—ONTRACK Ownership 
8.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Can he confirm the Johnsonville railway corridor including the lines signalling and the overhead systems is owned by ONTRACK on behalf of the Crown and that neither the Greater Wellington Regional Council the Wellington City Council nor the Bus and Coach Association has had any discussions with ONTRACK about the line’s future notwithstanding the fact that the joint councils’ North Wellington Public Transport Study considering the future of the line is in its second stage? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Crown owns the land; ONTRACK owns the facilities on top of the land. There have been no discussions with the Wellington City Council or the Bus and Coach Association. ONTRACK is a participant on the regional land transport committee with the Greater Wellington Regional Council but no recommendation has been received from the regional land transport committee about its views on the future of the line. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister confirm ONTRACK’s view that it strongly favours the retention of the rail service as being consistent with the National Rail Strategy and achievable at a cost of just $5 million for upgrading the line as opposed to conversion to a guided busway at a cost of up to $115 million and at least 2 years with no service while the conversion is undertaken even before any buses are bought; will the Government therefore point out to the Wellington City Council the sheer folly of its proposal to convert the Johnsonville line into a busway? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that ONTRACK strongly supports the retention of the line and considers that the line should continue to be operated and further developed as a rail line. Neither ONTRACK nor the Government has received any proposal to convert the Johnsonville line into a busway. We would certainly not support that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister give an assurance that in the event the councils do decide to proceed with that conversion the $115 million minimum cost of conversion to a busway would not be borne by taxpayers but would be a charge against the Wellington City Council for it to then have to justify to its ratepayers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I have said we have received no proposal. If we did receive a proposal with that sort of cost I doubt very much that we would want to give it very serious consideration at all. I see no reason why the taxpayer should fund such a conversion. 
Sue Kedgley 
: If the rail operator Toll is not interested in running the passenger rail service the Overlander or properly marketing it would the Government be willing to fast track another suitable operator into running the service by making a clear statement that ONTRACK will grant it fair access to a reliable track at a reasonable price; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I understand that the Overlander does not run on the Johnsonville line. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was another of the witty put-down remarks by the Minister of Finance. Would it be possible for him to try to address the question? It was a little wide— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the difficulty is that the question was very specific and the member has considerably broadened it. We will have another go if the Minister would like to answer it in the interests of moving on. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member asked a question that was specifically about the Johnsonville line. I fail to see what that has to do with the Overlander which is a shorter train than the trains on the Johnsonville line. It does not run on the Johnsonville line and it is not a commuter passenger service. Indeed it meets nothing in relation to the original question at all. It is a train. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could I rephrase my question so that it deals exclusively with the Johnsonville line? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please do. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree that a one-way guided busway such as has been proposed on the Johnsonville line would be the only one in the world; would he agree therefore with Peter Dunne that it would be a complete folly to rip up an ongoing rail-track and put in a one-way guided busway which does not exist anywhere else in the world—it has no other precedent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It does seem very strange but I assume it goes the other way in the evening; otherwise there would be serious congestion in central Wellington before too many days were out. 
Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill—Progress 
9.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I understand that the bill has been reported back. 
Judith Collins 
: What advice has he received as to why the Social Services Committee failed to endorse his bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The advice I have received is that one of my colleagues was tied up in another select committee and therefore there was a tied vote. However unfortunately for the member the current Leader of the House had the prescience in 1996 to ensure that such bills were reported back without amendment and the House can subsequently consider them in the Committee of the whole House. 
Anne Tolley 
: Has the chairman of the Social Services Committee admitted to him yet that despite Labour having the majority on the committee the bill was voted down because Mrs Pillay was late that day and has Mr Barnett the senior Government whip admitted that he walked out before the vote thinking everything was under control? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the amendments that had been put are all in favour of the general public we rather thought the National Party would be sensible enough to vote in favour of the bill. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister ever consult the chair of the Social Services Committee regarding the likely fate of his bills in that committee; if so what advice has the chair given him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure the member does I am sure the Minister does and I am sure members are given good advice. I can assure the member that the bill will be coming to the House a Supplementary Order Paper will be moved in the Committee of the whole House and then we shall find out whether the Opposition will vote against taking back from 28 days to 90 days the benefits within the bill. 
Judith Collins 
: What changes if any have been made to the bill by the Social Services Committee? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: After careful deliberation the bill is reported back without amendment but this is not something we will cry about. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister confident that the bill will pass through its remaining stages or is it likely that his party will forget to have the numbers during the Committee stage as well? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In just over a year the Opposition has had one small victory in one select committee with a tied vote. It has not quite reached the point where those members can say: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. 
Internet Access—Government Initiatives 
10.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Communications 
: What has the Government done to improve New Zealanders’ access to Internet services? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 Five Broadband Challenge applications totalling $16.3 million for urban fibre network projects have been approved for Auckland’s North Shore the lovely city of Hamilton Porirua - Hutt Valley Nelson-Marlborough and Christchurch. This $24 million Broadband Challenge fund is to provide seed funding for broadband Internet access as part of our digital strategy to transform the New Zealand economy. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What reports has he seen about the Broadband Challenge announcement? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have seen a number of reports including this statement from Hamilton City Council corporate group general manager Mike Garrett welcoming the $3.2 million of Broadband Challenge funding for that city’s fibre network. Mr Garrett stated: “There is no question that this is great news for Hamilton and it means as a city we can be at the forefront of community led broadband accessibility.” I seek leave to table this media release from the city council of the lovely city of Hamilton. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 7 to Minister—Amended Answer 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In my answer to question No. 7 I said that we do not provide TVs for prisoners in New Zealand. That is not correct. There are two instances. There are TVs provided in common rooms and in the previously privately owned Auckland Central Remand Prison TVs were provided to every prisoner and they have in fact not been removed. I am not sure whether we are actually charging prisoners in that previously privately owned facility. We do charge in other cells. 
Court System—Access to Justice 
11.  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Does he still stand by his statement in the House on 7 September disagreeing that justice delayed is justice denied; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Delays in a hearing or alternatively a delay in justice may be for many good reasons. A defence lawyer may seek and be granted a delay in a trial that facilitates justice not denies it. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Which answer is correct: (a) his response to question for written answer No. 11335 on 31 August which shows that the total number of court staff in the South Island has decreased; (b) his answer in the House on 7 September which stated: “… the number of staff in the Christchurch court has been increased.”; (c) his announcement on 31 August of the actual creation—even though not advertised yet—of six additional positions in the Christchurch District Court; or (d) the Ministry of Justice website advertising for just one part-time receptionist in the Christchurch District Court? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: (c). 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Which answer is correct: (a) his answer in the House on 7 September that he has put “$165 million” into the courts; (b) his statement on 29 August 2006 in the House that he has put a “massive injection of $156 million … into both the courts and justice”; (c) his press release dated 7 September 2006 advising “an increase in total baseline funding of $156 million to Courts.”—not justice; or (d) is this just another $9 million bungle? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: All of those statements are correct because this Government inherited a court system with a collection of unreconstructed 100-year-old buildings. We had virtually no computer systems in our court system. Charles Dickens would have recognised our court system as being Victorian. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to repeat his answer in silence. If anyone interrupts I will be asking that member to leave the House. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No one can deny that this Government has injected a massive sum of funds into the court system because we inherited as a legacy a court system that Charles Dickens would have recognised as Victorian. With hardly a computer in it the court system had had a 20th century bypass. We have put in a case management system we have put in videoconferencing we have digitalised courts and we have increased the numbers of staff. We have done a fantastic job in bringing the court system up to a modern standard. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Which answer is correct: (a) his answer in the House on 29 August “that an extra 44 courts have digital audio technology”; (b) his letter dated 29 August which stated: “There are currently 38 courtrooms that have digital audio technology installed.”; or (c) the same letter which stated: “The first batch of courtrooms to be digital audio technology - enabled will be completed by February 2007.”; or (d) he has the equipment but cannot or does not use it? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The last option is not correct and that is certainly for sure. I can say that we have done an enormous amount to digitalise the court system in this country and I am reliant upon my staff giving me accurate information. I do not personally count it but—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Again the Minister will answer in silence. The Minister will answer succinctly. If anyone interrupts he or she will be leaving the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the last two questions my colleague has asked quite a specific question. The first one was about numbers; the second one was about the number of courts. You have insisted that we on this side of the House be absolutely silent but you have not insisted that the Minister simply answer the question about which of the figures are correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry members cannot prescribe the nature or the content of the answers. What the Standing Orders require is that the question be addressed. The Minister is to be heard in silence and he is to be succinct. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The last option put by that member is certainly not correct. But what I can say is that we inherited a court system that was very antiquated and we have invested heavily in digital recording because that will ensure that the cases are heard more quickly and justice is sped up. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has he received regarding the performance of courts? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have seen a report that states: “‘Mr Barker claims to be “doing heaps” but how does increasing the number of judges to three and then only in Wellington and Auckland help the High Court in Christchurch …”. The report goes on to state: “In fact the median waiting times for High Court jury trials has increased in each and every South Island court”. Firstly the Government has not increased the number of High Court judges by three; in fact they have been increased to 33. Secondly as of 30 June 2006 my staff advise me that there were no outstanding jury trials in Blenheim Nelson Invercargill or anywhere in the South Island. The evidence again is that that member Kate Wilkinson picks her way through the facts and does not always tell the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can the Minister justify his answer in the House on 7 September that there are “substantial reductions in many many registries” when his boasted reduction of outstanding civil and High Court cases of 50 percent in Timaru amounts to a reduction of only one case the 40 percent reduction in Dunedin amounts to a reduction of four cases and the 22 percent reduction in Palmerston North amounts to two cases; and what would he not accept as being substantial? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That member occasionally plays with statistics and adds statistics up to make them look bad. What she did not say— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member address the question. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: What the member did not say or acknowledge is that her general claim was that court waiting times have gone up substantially across the board and without exception. Those examples show that waiting times have in fact gone down. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: What explanation can he give further to his press release to the  
Marlborough Express 
 on 11 September as to how the “modernisation of the reception [and] public waiting … areas” will help reduce the massive median waiting times for a hearing in the Blenheim Court of 372 days—the worst in the country—and surely the parties are not expected to wait in posh waiting rooms for over a year for justice to be delivered? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Delays in the courts can be many. There can be delays sought by either the defence or prosecution there can be delays in getting expert evidence and there can be delays in getting forensic evidence. There are many reasons for delays not all of which are the responsibility of the court. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. When the member said on 7 September that justice delayed is justice denied how many years would have to pass before the Minister would say justice delayed was justice denied? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives every citizen protection from undue delays in court processes. I am pleased to note to the House that the number of cases that have been granted a stay of proceedings this year for systemic reasons is zero. 
Hone Harawira 
: Would the Minister then agree that Te Arawa has been denied justice because of the delays since 1909 when they turned to the court for a ruling to determine ownership of the lakes; and how would that denial of justice be justly remedied? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I think the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is in a better position to answer that question than I am. 
Waitemata District Health Board—Waiting Lists 
12.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What advice has he got for doctors at Waitemata District Health Board when they are forced to explain to patients that they are one of the 800 to be culled from waiting lists to avoid a $3 million penalty the result of his ministry’s requirements? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I am assured by the chief executive of the Waitemata District Health Board that clinical managers at that district health board have thoroughly reviewed the clinical priority of each patient case by case who has been waiting for more than 6 months for a first specialist assessment. This review has included speaking with patients and where appropriate their general practitioners. Patients referred back to their general practitioners will be receiving active care and may be reassessed and if necessary referred again for specialist referral. 
Heather Roy 
: What advice does he have for patients who notify the district health board that they cannot make their appointment but are told they cannot be rebooked before 30 September—as per an email that was distributed to clinicians yesterday—and because of this Minister’s heartless policies will now be sent back to their general practitioner instead of getting the treatment they need? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This is not new. There are sensible rules that recognise that if people do not keep their out-patient appointments and if they just do not turn up call or make a time that suits them better then it is not fair to have consultants’ time unused when other patients are indeed waiting to be seen. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think the Minister quite heard my question. It asked what advice he had for patients who notify the district health board not those who just do not turn up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was not phrased as a question in that sense. Would the member please rephrase her question so that I can hear it again? 
Heather Roy 
: What advice does he have for patients who notify the district health board that they cannot make their appointment but are told they cannot be rebooked before 30 September—as clinicians were notified by email yesterday—and because of this Minister’s heartless policies will now be sent back to their general practitioner instead of receiving the treatment they need? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of a leaked email but I am not aware that those who have notified their specialists will be dropped. As I said those who do not notify the district health board and do not turn up will be dropped. 
Ann Hartley 
: How is the Government supporting the Waitemata District Health Board to increase its elective surgical throughput? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Minister has approved funding for the Waitemata District Health Board to complete one new theatre early next year and three more theatres in 2008-09. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: If the Minister considers the impact of waiting list performance measures on the waiting list cull can he advise whether there will be more strike action by radiographers next week and what action is under way by district health boards or the Government to avert it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is broader than the primary question but would the Minister address it please. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I cannot tell that member whether there will be strike action next week but I understand that district health boards have handled the situation this week very well. I thank all those people who have cooperated. 
Heather Roy 
: What will be the total financial penalty imposed on the 21 district health boards if they fail to cull the required number of patients from their waiting lists by 30 September and what service does he recommend hospitals cut to meet the cost of this “Hodgson’s choice”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not aware of the cost of cuts to any district health boards but I can say the estimate of $3 million relates to whether payments are made early in the month or later in the month. There is no intention at all to change the time that the money is paid to the Waitemata District Health Board. So the board will still have its $3 million which that member claimed it would lose. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a leaked email from the Waitemata District Health Board which means that if a patient has been waiting 5½ weeks for a specialist appointment and then rings up and says he or she needs a 2-week delay because of a death in the family that person will be culled from the waiting list. 
Document not tabled. 
Questions to Members 
Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill—Consequences 
1.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bil 
l Has she received any advice since introducing the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill that the proposed legislation would have a number of negative unintended consequences; if so what are these negative consequences? 
MARYAN STREET (Member in charge of the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill): 
 I am aware that a number of submitters thought there might be unintended consequences which is not the same thing as there actually being unintended consequences. But one such putative unintended consequence was that of the establishment of a list of uninsurable tenants or a blacklist. My bill carries no such intention or implication. It simply asks that non-liable tenants not be pursued for costs in the event of damage being caused by another tenant. 
Phil Heatley 
: What is her response to official statements made by the Government’s Department of Building and Housing that her legislation “will create more problems than solved” that “many people will be uninsurable and will not get accommodation” that “first-time and at-risk renters are particularly disadvantaged” and that “there will be significant compliance costs for all parties”; has she as yet had the courage to tell the Deputy Prime Minister this is yet another small victory for National in the Social Services Committee as the committee has unanimously dumped the legislation even though everyone was there to vote? 
MARYAN STREET 
: I am very aware that the purpose of the bill remains as an issue that has been taken up by the Department of Building and Housing’s current review of the Residential Tenancies Act with the full knowledge and support of the Minister. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Department of Building and Housing’s damning report on Maryan Street’s bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the select committee report recommending that the bill does not proceed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Heatley has been a member of this House for some time. I think it would be useful for you to remind him that the point of tabling papers is to provide information that members of the House cannot otherwise get access to. Seeking leave to table a report of a select committee is a waste of time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is not a point of order but what he said is true. 
Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. I stand to acknowledge the significance of this day for the people of Te Arawa and acknowledge especially those in the galleries of the House who have travelled here to join us. Sadly some of those who began the long task of negotiating a settlement for Te Arawa’s claims in relation to the lakes are no longer with us. I take this opportunity to acknowledge their contribution now. E nga mate haere haere haere. 
When Te Arawa sought to have their mandate recognised by the Crown they quoted a proverb: “Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi engari he toa takitini.” which means: “My strength is not my own rather it is the strength of many.” This proverb appropriately describes the determination of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board to see this settlement through to completion. Over the past 8 years since their mandate was recognised the trust board has steadfastly represented the interests of Te Arawa as a whole in relation to their lakes. The trust board has withstood challenges from a few of their own people but today they still stand strong as representatives of Te Arawa. As I noted during the Committee stage few will ever know or understand the huge personal cost incurred—and I mean cost in every sense of the word—by those who have carried the responsibility of leadership throughout this long process. 
 This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Te Arawa in relation to the Te Arawa Lakes and settles all their historical Treaty claims in relation to their lakes. This bill contains a formal apology to Te Arawa for the breaches of the Treaty acknowledged by the Crown and provides both financial and cultural redress. Importantly the ownership of 13 of the Te Arawa lakebeds is transferred and the opportunity is provided to actively participate in the lakes’ management. 
Te Arawa began negotiations with the Crown in 1999. The main components of the settlement package were agreed in December 2003 and a deed of settlement initialled by negotiators—as members know—in October 2004. A significant majority of Te Arawa who were eligible to vote participated in a postal ballot to confirm their support for the settlement. Accordingly representatives of the Crown and Te Arawa signed a deed of settlement at Parliament on 18 December 2004. The passage of this bill is the final step that will enable the Crown to provide the settlement redress to Te Arawa. 
The historic Treaty claims of Te Arawa concerning the lakes relate mainly to Crown actions that breached the Treaty of Waitangi. These included the Crown’s failure to legislate for a sufficient number of fishing licences for Te Arawa in 1908 when it promoted legislation to address the problem of hardship and the Crown’s failure to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa as part of the 1922 Te Arawa Lakes agreement when it materially lost value as a result of inflation. 
Through this bill Te Arawa will relinquish the ability to lodge further historic claims in relation to the lakes in the Waitangi Tribunal or the courts. They will join Waikato Tainui in respect of their raupatu claims Ngai Tahu Ngati Turangitukua Pouakani Te Uri o Hau Ngati Ruanui Ngati Tama Ngati Awa and Ngati Tuwhareatoa Bay of Plenty in this respect. These groups have all negotiated full and final settlements in relation to historic claims. 
At the same time others have been exercising their rights as Maori to register historic claims in the Waitangi Tribunal. The tribunal has already produced a large number of reports on many of these claims behind which sits a huge body of research. I do not believe 20 years after historic claims were first allowed that there are many remaining issues still to be brought forward to the Crown’s notice through the tribunal process. This Government is strongly committed to the resolution of all historic claims and the passage of this bill is I suggest to members a particularly important step towards that goal. 
As Te Arawa knows so well lodging a claim in the Waitangi Tribunal is only the beginning of the process. Long years of work have been put in by the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board Ministers the Office of Treaty Settlements and many other agencies and departments to reach this settlement. This bill marks the final chapter in the long and proud history of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. As agreed by Te Arawa the trust board will cease to exist after settlement date and the Te Arawa Lakes Trust will become the new governance entity for Te Arawa in relation to their lakes. 
I acknowledge the past and present members of the trust board for their dedication and determination on behalf of their people to seek a resolution of their grievances and for the myriad of other achievements. I acknowledge all of those from Te Arawa who have worked tirelessly towards making this day possible. I take the opportunity in particular to acknowledge Anaru Rangiheuea the chairman of Te Arawa Maori Trust Board who has led this claim. Rangatira ma tena koutou. Also David Tapsell the chief negotiator for the settlement and Roku Mihinui the general manager of the trust board. They have provided leadership and determination over the years that has resulted in the settlement package we have before us today.  
I acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Margaret Wilson for her fortitude and leadership in seeking the resolution of Te Arawa’s claims in relation to the lakes. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minster of Conservation the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Environment. I particularly acknowledge the valuable support and contribution made by the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mita Ririnui and of course all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement. In particular I note the excellent work of claim managers Ben White and Tania Gerrard which has been an important factor in helping us to reach today’s outcome. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the contributions of the first Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to the early stages of the negotiations the Hon Sir Douglas Graham. 
In closing I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Te Arawa Lakes deed of settlement. Stories such as these are important episodes in our history but remembering them is vital to understanding the relationship between the tangata whenua of this country and those of us whose ancestors arrived here later. We must know our history if we are to learn and benefit from its lessons. I wish in particular all the best for the future to Te Arawa their elders descendants and their negotiating team. They will shortly begin the task of managing their settlement assets. I am certain that they will do so with the tenacity commitment and sound judgment that they have showed throughout the settlement process. I look forward to witnessing their endeavours into the future. I commend this bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I begin my comments by acknowledging the presence in the precincts of Parliament of the leaders of Te Arawa and the many people who have over a long number of years kept this claim alive and who have as the Minister the Hon Mark Burton said gone through considerable personal difficulty or without concern for that difficulty have carried on the work that they felt they needed to do. 
The Crown’s role in settling Treaty grievance is somewhat central because the Crown accepts the negative side of all the dealings that might have gone on around any particular set of issues that are being settled. It is right and proper that such settlements are done here in Parliament. I know that Te Arawa have had difficulties with the lakes issue since the early part of the 1900s and quite probably prior to that. But the one thing that a Parliament should do is make sure that when there is a full and final settlement it is just that. It should make sure that those people on whose behalf an issue is being settled are properly represented in the final accepted agreement. Our concern is that that may not be the case here. 
When we first looked at this bill some time back we were given any amount of information that over a period of time proved to be quite spurious. But it did cause us to look at the history of the previous settlement in 1922. What was interesting to me was that arrangements were concluded between a lawyer from Auckland a lawyer from Wellington and the Government represented by Sir Apirana Ngata. Effectively no Te Arawa were involved. It is not surprising then that 80-odd years later we are back here looking at it all again. 
I will separate out a couple of things. We have no objection to the capitalising of the annuity. That is only reasonable; we have no objection to that at all. And we have no problem with the fishing-licence issue. It is appalling that the agreement was not honoured throughout all those years. But we do have a difficulty with the rest of the bill. It is not meant to be a difficulty that conveys ill will. I want to make it clear that it is our view that although this bill will be passed today and that Te Arawa—without our vote—will leave here with our best wishes for the future there will be a need to come back here at another time and we will be prepared to hear that case. 
The number of people who were involved in the mandate on this was extremely low. I asked during the select committee process how many people called themselves Te Arawa and the number I was given was around 40000. So we asked how many people had participated in the mandating exercise and we were told some 8000-odd. How many people went for it—said “Yes do this!”? The figure was less than half that again. That figure is too small and if Te Arawa had not had the exercise done properly by the Office of Treaty Settlements we should have been told. Just as there were clearly a number of people in 1922 who were happy with the arrangements there were many many more who were not. Therefore the legislation was carried imposed and ultimately put in front of us again. 
We have heard stories from the various people who came along to the select committee and said: “This is not us because we’re not part of the trust board structure and various other things—but we are Te Arawa and we do have connections to a particular lake in the set of lakes we are talking about here.” I do not think it is fair that those people are just cast aside. People may say: “Well you don’t know enough about it; you haven’t talked to the right people; you haven’t got yourself into a position where you can make this statement.” But the sad thing is that the history is on my side—the very short history. 
So I want to conclude my remarks by saying to Te Arawa: “Accept the settlement—sure—and take the annuity. Get involved in the organisations that will do good things for the lakes and for this country in effect. That is fine. But accept that we know that the legislation is not perfect we know that it will come back and we know that we will have to do something on behalf of the many—the many—who are not saying yes to this agreement.” I say those words deliberately because it may not be in my time in this House it may not be in a generation’s time in this House but as recent history shows us it will happen. In that event there will be no one who can make a claim that this is full and final—therefore we are unable to vote for it. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to share the comments of the Minister and I acknowledge the presence of Te Arawa here today. As chair of the Maori Affairs Committee I will follow that up with a few other comments as we witnessed the process. To do that I want to share with the House the outline of the submission from the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. 
The submission is headed: “Is it the best offer that we can negotiate?”. It reads as follows: “The trust board strongly believes that the Crown’s settlement offer represents the best outcomes that Te Arawa can achieve in all aspects of this settlement. The trust board believes that the Crown’s settlement offer will enable Te Arawa to develop and maintain effective and meaningful relationships with the lakes. Among other things that will increase our ability to participate in a positive manner in both the local and national community. Therefore the trust board strongly believes that accepting the Crown’s settlement offer is in the best interests of Te Arawa. It is important to understand that Treaty settlements occur in a political setting and so are governed by a number of political constraints. Further the trust board is aware that the current political climate is somewhat different from the political climate in which the trust board began these negotiations. For that reason the trust board believes that it is now even less likely that a more appropriate settlement package could be negotiated for Te Arawa. In respect of the lakes in future the trust board is aware that the Crown’s settlement offer may not please everyone. However the trust board strongly believes that the Crown’s settlement offer is the best that Te Arawa can negotiate. Given this the trust board believes that now is the best time to settle the lakes claims so that Te Arawa may use the benefits of the settlement to strengthen and rebuild Te Arawa’s relationship with the lakes.” 
 I see that last sentence as very important because it talks about arriving at a place at a point to make a decision. Having read that I point out that it shows that the decision Te Arawa had to make was not an easy one. It was a very difficult decision and it was a hard one but it is a decision that they made and their decision obviously was to seek agreement through this deed and through this legislation. I want to acknowledge that because it is about leadership. It is about an iwi taking on board its responsibilities and being aware of what it takes to move on. It is hard and it is difficult. 
I want to comment that when we come into this House as members of Parliament we also have to make difficult decisions—very difficult decisions. Sometimes they are decisions that we do not like but we are here to make those decisions and they are based on a vote. They are based on a “Yes” vote or a “No” vote. If it is a “Yes” vote we stand up and we support that conviction. Equally everybody knows that if it is a “No” vote we do the same. But to abstain on a vote is I think a cop-out. Abstaining on a vote is not saying: “Yes we agree.” or: “No we do not agree.” It does not give us a platform to stand up and support a conviction at all. So I urge members when it comes to vote on this bill today to vote either for or against it. Members should state their conviction by voting appropriately. I think that that is important. 
I think it is equally important to mention the piece from the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board’s submission because it smacks heavily of having to make those hard decisions—about having the responsibility and nurturing that responsibility for the future. I congratulate Te Arawa on giving us that foresight. 
I thank the members of the select committee who participated throughout the process the clerks and you Madam Speaker as I understand that you were part of setting up the process as well. I thank my colleagues on the committee and finally I congratulate Te Arawa. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 E Te Arawa tena koutou. E aku rangatira e aku kuia haere mai nei i tenei ra tena koutou a tena koutou tena koutou. Kaua e papouri ki ahau mo ta matou whakahe i tenei pire. No reira e aroha ahau ki a koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Te Arawa and my chiefs and elderly ladies who have come here today; greetings to you greetings greetings. Do not be disappointed with us opposing this bill. You have my sympathy. 
] 
I ask Te Arawa not to criticise National members for what we are about to do. We have the best interests of people at heart and I for one am not ashamed of what I am going to do—that is vote against this bill. I intend to tell not the House but Te Arawa my convictions as to why I should oppose this bill. 
Sometimes when people are forced into things it is not a settlement at all. When one is walked to the aisle with one’s wife spouse or partner with a shotgun at one’s back—knowingly or not—it is not a settlement. In 1922 when this issue was first “settled” it came after some 15 years of Te Arawa wanting to take the Crown to court. It was only because Te Arawa then did not have the money to pursue their court case that the Crown came up with an agreement to provide an annuity of £6000—a fait accompli absolutely. 
I do not blame the Government for the template; I blame the Office of Treaty Settlements. I think the Office of Treaty Settlements has become a power unto itself. It is a law unto itself. The template being used now for the settlement of the Te Arawa lakes claim is exactly the same as the template being foisted on to a whole lot of other people—namely Tainui over the river claim. I have issues with the mandate but there is an old saying: “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” I congratulate Te Arawa on their job in trying to bring the horse to the water. Unfortunately the powers of Te Arawa are not great enough to make all of them drink from the same trough. 
I also want to have a word about the jurisdiction and liability issues. I am the owner of my quarter acre section in the lovely metropolis of the Te Atatu peninsula. If somebody comes on to my property and has an accident I am liable because I own the property and I have a duty of care to make sure that he or she is safe and sound. I am not sure whether people realise the implications of that in terms of Treaty settlements. Who is setting up whom for a big fall in terms of not putting in mechanisms to protect the ones at the end of the settlement? 
I am not sure about the power of veto that the Te Arawa Lakes Trust has in terms of any new structures or enterprises because that adds another set of bureaucracy on the community. God knows we have bureaucracy coming out of our ears. Whether people want to make a buck to make a living or whether people want just to build a house they have to jump through umpteen-dozen hoops just to get there. This bill adds another layer of bureaucracy and most probably heartache down the road. 
 Is the bill in the best interests of Te Arawa? Only Te Arawa can answer that question. I can pontificate about whether it is in the best interests of Te Arawa but at the end of the day they have signed the deal and I have not. I have some reservations that people simply are at the end of their tether in terms of the Treaty settlement process and are feeling—excuse my language—“Oh bugger it let’s get it over and done with before the whole iwi passes away or we’ll never get anything done.” That is a feeling amongst people. All we need to do is to look at the time that has been spent on this from day one to now. Ten years—at least 10 years. In a 10-year period people will get highly sick and tired of trundling back to the Crown. Even the Crown gets a bit sick and tired of it. 
There must be a better faster way. There must be—and this is in no way a criticism of people in this House—a way that ensures a settlement will last. I say to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that I have my doubts that this settlement will last. Again only time will tell whether in 50 or 100 years somebody from Te Arawa who feels disgruntled about what happened today or what happened in the signing asks the Prime Minister or the Government of that day to have another look at it. 
My colleague boss and deputy leader Gerry Brownlee said he had no problem with the annuity. Well I do. The problem is how the capitalisation was worked out. In the Maori Affairs Committee I wrote down—it is all here in my little book—“How is the process of capitalisation worked out?”. I could never work it out. Even the Office of Treaty Settlements and Te Puni Kokiri could not really tell me what formula was used to come up with the annuity. I have figured out that the Government came up with $10 million and it had to split it up so it decided that $7.3 million was for the annuity and $2.7 million was for cultural redress. That is the only way I can explain it. A tidy sum of $10 million to settle this? Why was it not $10127000? Where are the cents? Where are the other dollars? It is a convenient $10 million. I still cannot work out how the capitalisation came about; whether someone pulled a figure out of the air and said: “These fellas will be happy with this.” or whether it was actually done in terms of a formula. Te Puni Kokiri says there was no formula. 
I am sad that the National Party will not vote in favour of this bill but that must not hold Te Arawa back. I do not think anything will hold Te Arawa back. In the past—and it will certainly be the case in the future—they have never been backward in coming forward. 
I commend Te Arawa for the job they have done. I commend them on a rugged passage. But the people of New Zealand need to take note that this process is soul-destroying. This process is not the best process in the world. One day we may actually get the process right—one that allows a quick decent and everlasting settlement. 
Hoi ano ano te mihi ano te aroha ki a koutou nga rangatira nga tupuna e aku kaumatua e aku kuia; tena koutou tena koutou. Kia ora mai tatou katoa. 
[ 
So my greetings and sympathy once again to you chiefs ancestors my elderly men and womenfolk; greetings greetings and greetings to us all as well. 
] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe e te Kaikorero. Tihei mauri ora! Tupu mauri ora ki te whei ao ki te ao marama. A te Arawa waka te Arawa tangata tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. Nga mema o Te Poari Maori o Te Arawa nga rangatira koutou hoki i kawe mai i tenei kaupapa i roto i nga piki me nga heke tena koutou katoa. Kei te koa kei te hari ka tae tenei pire ara ki te panuitanga tuatoru na te mea kei te roa rawa atu tenei kaupapa e haere ana. Kei te tata ake i a tatou kia tae atu ki te mutunga o nga mahi o tenei Whare e pa ana ki te pire nei. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you Madam Speaker. Behold the sneeze of life that comes from within and out into the world of light the world of enlightenment. Greetings to you the canoe and people of Te Arawa greetings greetings. To you the members of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board the chiefs and to those of you responsible for bringing this matter here through all its trials and tribulations greetings to you all. I am pleased and happy that this bill has reached its third reading because the process has been a very very long one. In respect of this bill we are nearly at its final stages where this House is concerned. 
] 
Madam Speaker I preface my contribution to this debate by acknowledging your own input into the whole process that pertains to this particular claim. Today marks another milestone in the history of our country and that is the formal recognition by way of this legislation of Te Arawa’s claim to the ownership of the lakes covered in this bill. The fact that it has taken almost a century since Te Arawa’s original claim to clarify their ownership of these lakes is a testament to the long and difficult journey they have had to travel to get to this point. The part of the journey that saw the initiation of this particular claim began in 1987. 
In 1922 13 years after the initial court application to clarify Te Arawa’s claim to ownership Te Arawa and the Crown agreed to an out-of-court settlement that essentially sought that Te Arawa concede the vesting of the fee simple in the Crown in exchange for the Crown admitting the rights of Te Arawa to their ancient fisheries burial reserves and all of the lakes. This agreement also included the granting of a number of licences to fish for trout at a nominal fee and an annuity of £6000. This agreement did not provide for a review of this annuity. The agreement thus declared the lakes to be the property of the Crown and extinguished any customary title that Te Arawa had to the lakes. It is important to note that this was not a Treaty settlement unlike this bill; it was an out-of-court agreement concerning ownership litigation. 
This is a settlement that is aimed at bringing finality to Treaty grievances from 1840 to 1992 as far as grievances relative to these lakes. This includes breaches associated with insufficient fishing licences and the Crown’s failure to review the annuity when it lost value due to inflation. It is to their credit—and I think it is important for the people of New Zealand to note—that during the Depression and the Second World War Te Arawa through its Maori trust board actually gifted a proportion of its annuity to the Crown. I suppose given recent comments on this particular issue of gifts that could have been described as a koha from Te Arawa to the nation. Again I think it is important to note also that Te Arawa’s goodwill continues in the form of continued access by the public. That is being protected under this settlement. 
I think it is important to recognise the role that Te Arawa Maori Trust Board has played in reaching this settlement particularly in view of the strong criticism expressed during the earlier stages of this bill towards its roll and I suspect that that criticism continues up to this moment. Much of this criticism is centred on the issue of mandate and therefore its right to enter into negotiations on behalf of Te Arawa—an issue that is becoming a common concern with many if not all settlements to date. I know that in earlier debates on this bill reference was made to the fact that Te Arawa number at least 40000 and that only 9000 are registered on the board’s beneficiary roll. Of that number only 4000 participated in the process regarding mandate and acceptance of the settlement. Although it can be argued that this is a rather small number of the overall Te Arawa membership—that is 10 percent—what has been overlooked is that at best only 26000 would be eligible to vote. 
I cannot recall during the process of this bill to this stage being categorically informed as to the reason for the low turn-out in voter participation. It had been suggested that this may have been due to dissatisfaction towards the mandated body with the process and the negotiated settlement. Although this is disappointing I must accept that if people choose not to participate then they have very little comeback on what is ultimately decided on their behalf. Similarly if there are members in this House who will choose to abstain from casting a vote one way or the other then I say to them that they are either for this bill or they are not. This is not a fence-sitting matter. 
What are the key elements of this bill? I will list them. First of all there are the acknowledgments and the apology by the Crown. There is the settlement of this claim. There is also cultural redress that includes vesting of lake beds—described in the bill as Te Arawa stratum—entrusted in the trustees of Te Arawa Lakes Trust. The water and the air directly above the lakebed are vested in the Crown and are described in the bill as the Crown stratum—and we did hear that that was the first time it had been described in these terms. Other elements include the limiting of liability of the trustees for contamination of the lakes; the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group for the purpose of contributing to the promotion of the sustainable management of the lakes and their catchment for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations while recognising and providing for the traditional relationship of Te Arawa and their ancestral lakes; the issue of protocols between Te Arawa and various ministries of the Crown; statutory acknowledgments; traditional provisions that allow for the dissolution of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board; and of course $10.4 million of which $400000 is for the provision of fishing licences. 
Whatever criticism the opponents may have about the amount of this settlement the point that needs to be noted is that the duly mandated negotiators have negotiated in good faith and can I say that although it may not be perfect it is their settlement. It is probably not an appropriate time to make reference to the issue surrounding the claim on Lake Ngapouri by Ngati Whaoa. Athough the settlement has not actually delivered the outcome they desired it is hoped that they will—as will I hope other hapu and iwi groups who feel similarly aggrieved—feel some solace in the intention as advised to me of the trustees to allow for local input into the management of the respective lakes. 
It would be remiss of me not to mention the disquiet that I and my colleagues in New Zealand First have about this bill and this is in respect of the inclusion of the ill-defined—in fact undefined—references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. To say that we are disappointed at the inclusion of these references would be an understatement. We are reluctant to accept their inclusion particularly in clauses 13 and 14—they being part of the substance of the bill. Their earlier inclusion in the bill I can understand as this makes reference to their inclusion in the deed of settlement. I can only suppose that it is for this same reason that reference to the principles is included later in the bill. Because we support the process and the outcome we therefore support the legislation. This will not however detract from the intent of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill being sponsored by my colleague Doug Woolerton and already referred to a select committee of this Parliament. Instead of 33 pieces of legislation that have references to these undefined principles this number will be added to by the passing of this bill today. I reaffirm the support of New Zealand First for the passage of this bill. 
Waku korero mutunga he mihi tonu ki a koutou o Te Arawa 
. 
 Kei roto i a koutou ringa inaianei na ki te whakahaere o nga roto o Te Arawa. Na reira nga manaakitanga o Te Runga Rawa kei runga i a koutou i tenei wa me nga tau kei te heke. Kia ora ano tatou. 
[ 
In closing I acknowledge you Te Arawa. The administration of the Te Arawa lakes is in your hands now. May the blessings of the Almighty Above be upon you at this time and in the years ahead. Greetings to us all. 
]  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe. Every settlement that has come to Parliament has been difficult and controversial. The Green Party has supported all the settlement legislation to date because it has a huge respect for those who have worked to achieve those settlements. But our view of the Government process remains a highly critical one. We have long advocated for the development of a diversity of models for restitution and nationally sustainable compensation over time. We are entirely opposed to a unilaterally imposed final date for the lodging of claims as this only perpetuates the inequalities of the settlement process and fails to give the wronged party opportunities to have their wrongs properly rectified. 
This settlement took nearly 10 years to complete. It has cost the iwi thousands of dollars and the process for devising the settlement has caused serious internal issues that will take some time to resolve. We think that the costs are too high and are borne entirely by the iwi and that this clearly demonstrates how unfair the settlement process is. That said we have enormous respect for Te Arawa and its persistence in finding a way through. 
We fully support the return of the lakes to Te Arawa and we expect that the rightful owners will be able to provide the necessary will that should see the eventual cleaning-up and restoration of these lakes. The lakes are incredibly precious beautiful and of extraordinary ecological and spiritual importance to New Zealand. But they are dying and they are dying as a result of the pollution caused by human activity over the last 80 years when they have been out of the hands of the hapu. Leakage from septic tanks remains a serious problem. The deforestation of the surrounding areas which are pumice soils has also impacted on the lakes and there remains the very serious issue of pollution from farm runoff which is causing nutrient loading in the lakes. Much of the soil water contributes to nutrient loading and it can take as we know up to 30 years for the nutrients on the land to make their way down into the water itself which means that it will take many many more years before the damage from 30 years ago comes to fruition. It also means that there is an absolutely desperate need for urgent action now to clean up these lakes. 
We are very pleased about the iwi plans to restore the wetlands around the lakes. Wetlands are magnificent ecosystems. Many of course have been lost to New Zealand because they were drained for farmland and that has gone on to produce nutrient problems. Wetlands are highly sensitive. They are key indicators of the health of an area as well as key indicators of climate change. They can operate as a critical mechanism for lakes and other waterways so the restoration of wetlands will go a long way towards the cleaning-up of the lakes themselves. 
We recognise that the return of the lakes to Te Arawa does not include the provision of resources to enable their clean-up and we recognise that Te Arawa will be working jointly with local authorities and central government to clean up these lakes. It is now incumbent on these predominantly Pakeha institutions to take urgent and well-resourced action—to do anything less would undermine the point of the settlement. 
We are pleased that the settlement has proceeded and is almost complete. We are pleased that Te Arawa in terms of the return of the lakes will no longer be dependent on Government largesse. We hope that Te Arawa will no longer be used as a weapon in National’s attacks on Maori as was evident in Don Brash’s comment that the return of the lakes would “open the way to all kinds of blackmail and extortion.” That sort of ignorance and prejudice flies in the face of the commitment of Te Arawa to the preservation and protection of the lakes as a national treasure to be respected and enjoyed by all New Zealanders. The Green Party thanks Te Arawa for this commitment and wishes it the best for the future. We support the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. Tena koe. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa i te Whare nei. Kei nga uri o Ngati Ohomairangi koutou o te poari kua haramai tena koutou katoa. 
He aha ta tatou i te ra nei? Kua hara mai tatou o Te Arawa ki tenei wahi ki te whakatikatika i tetahi nawe kua roa e noho ana i roto i te ngakau i te wairua o te iwi ara ko te mana o nga roto o te kainga. E te iwi nau mai hara mai. 
Kei waenganui nga roto nei i te hohonutanga o te ngakau i nga waiata nga pepeha nga hitori me ki kua whakairohia i te ngakau o nga uri whakatupu. Na runga i tera whakaaro ara ano etahi e ki ana kaore tera mana i ngaro i a tatou. A tera korero tera. 
I te tau 1922 kaore e kore ara noa atu nga tumanako o nga koroua i haina i tetahi whakaaetanga i waenganui i a tatou o Te Arawa me te Karauna. He aha te putake o taua whakaaetanga? Ko te mana o nga roto. 
I timata mai ai tenei take i te tau 1909. I taua wa i haere a Te Arawa ki te kooti kia riro mana ma te kooti te take o te mana o nga roto e whakatau. A nawai ra nawai ra i whakataruna te Karauna i nga hiahia o Te Arawa. He mahi huna te mahi kia kore o tatou tupuna e whiwhi i nga mahere a-rohe hei awhina i a ratou i nga kooti. I te tau 1920 i tono te Karauna ki a Te Arawa me tona hiahia ki te whakatau i nga take o Te Arawa. 
Katahi ka whanau mai ko te whakaaetanga i waenga i a tatou ko te Karauna i te tau 1922 penei ano i te mahi i te ra nei. Ko tona tikanga i whai hua a Te Arawa i taua wa. Ko te mate kaore ano kia tutuki a tae ra no ki tenei rangi. Heoi ano waru tekau iwa tekau tau i muri mai he hokinga tuarua mai tenei—kei te hoki tatou ki te puehu i tutu ai i nga tau kua hipa. 
Na te Karauna tenei korero e hoa ma ehara na Te Ururoa. Ko ta te Kawanatanga i hara a ia. Hei tana: ae i whakakohatuhia te nui o te putea ki te 6 mano pauna mo ake tonu atu; ae kaore a ia i arotake i te nui o te putea a-tau no reira i whakakorehia te wariu o taua putea i nga tau; ae nana ano nga ika hou i tuku mai. Ka mutu kua ngaro nga momo ika e mohiotia ana e tatou; ae na raua ko te kaunihera a-rohe i whakariterite nga ahuatanga a-tiaki o nga roto me tona mutunga ake i paru katoa nga roto; ae i hamenehia nga uri o Te Arawa mo te hi ika kore raihana i raro i nga ture o te Kawanatanga; ae ahakoa nga petihana nga tira haere o Te Arawa ki te kuaha o nga Kawanatanga ki nga kooti ki nga taraipiunara kaore ia i aro mai ki te whakatikatika i ona hara. 
Koi ra ta te Karauna e ki nei. Ko taku ko te tautoko. Me tuohu te mahunga ka tika. Hoi ano kei konei tatou i te ra nei. Tera pea me harikoa tatou! He kupu pouri ta te Kawanatanga. Me whakatika te tangata i tana hara me muru i ona hara. Ha! Ko te kupu tuatahi ko te muru i te hara ko te kupu tuarua ka mahi ano hoki ia i te mahi huna. E ki ana te korero he korero tonu ta te po he korero ano ta te ata. 
He putea kua tukuna mai ki a Te Arawa. Tekau miriona taara te nui. A ka pai ka pai! Engari i here tera nui ki te kopaki o te Karauna i kawe haerehia e ia i nga tau kua hipa ara te kopaki i kaha whakahengia e te motu. 
Ko ta nga mea e matatau ana ki enei take he kotahi o-rau noa iho te nui o te putea ko te tikanga ka whiwhi i a tatou. He kongakonga noa iho mena ka titiro tatou ki te nui o nga mea kua ngaro nei i a tatou. Kei hea te painga? Kei te Karauna kei te kaunihera kei te hapori ehara i a Te Arawa. Koi ra te take o te hara mai i te ra nei. Me harikoa? Kao. 
Me whakamoemiti tatou kei te hoki mai nga roto. Ka pai hoki! A taihoa. Ko ta te Kawanatanga ko nga roto kei te hoki mai engari kaua ko te wai. Ko etahi o koutou o te kainga hoki i patai te patai: “Ha! He aha tenei mea o te roto mena karekau he wai o roto?”. Katahi te mahi rorirori ko tera! 
Engari kaore i mutu i reira. Kua puta te korero nona te wai nona te rangi i runga ake i te whenua. Naku tonu i whakatakoto te patai: “ E ki e ki na wai i ki nou tenei mea ko te ‘Crown stratum’ e korerohia ake nei?”. Ko ta te Minita no mua noa atu no te Land Act 1948. E hoa ma karekau he korero i reira. Ko tenei te wa tuatahi kua puta tenei korero ki te motu. 
Ko etahi ka ki a “He aha te raru o tera?”. Me ki mena ka whakaaetia mai ai i konei kua mana tera korero a ka pa ano te hohonutanga o tera korero ki nga iwi hapu e whai panga ana ki tenei mea ko te wai. 
Me ki kei te whakaae tatou ki ta te Kawanatanga korero nona era ahuatanga katoa ahakoa kaore ano tera whakaaro kia whakamatauria i nga kooti i hea ranei. He mahi raupatu te mahi ko Te Arawa te utu na to tatou whakaaetanga noa atu. Tera korero tera. 
Na kua ki mai te Kawanatanga he ropu whaiti ka whakaturia hei whakapaipai ake i nga roto. Hei ta te pire nei ko nga mea o Te Kaunihera a-Rohe ko nga mea o Environment Bay of Plenty a ko te tokorua o tatou o Te Arawa. E ki e ki tokorua noa iho nga mea o Te Arawa engari karekau he korero mo te tokomaha o aua ropu e rua ka tahi ka rua mena ka riro ki a tatou te mana o nga roto ko tona tikanga kei a tatou te kupu whakamutunga? 
Ko tona tikanga kia orite te tokomaha o Te Arawa ki te kotahitanga o nga ropu e rua? Kao kaua i tenei pira. Ko te kupu whakamutunga kei tangata ke kei a ratou te hunga i tuku i te pirau ki nga roto i te tuatahi. Ehara i te mea kei te ki au me pana atu. Kao. Me noho atu engari me waiho ki a tatou te korero whakamutunga. 
Ae ko nga roto kei te hoki mai me ki ko te whenua i raro i te wai. Me harikoa ano tatou kua whiwhi i a tatou ko nga pirau ko nga paru ko nga tutae ko nga hamuti i waihotia mai e te Kawanatanga e te kaunihera? Koia nei te tutae i kitea mai ai i korerohia mai ai e etahi o te kainga. Ko te tutae te hoa haere i a ratou e kaukau ana i te awa o Utuhina.  
Me harikoa i te mea hei ta te Karauna ehara no Te Arawa te he mo te ahuatanga o te paru o nga roto? Na ka pataia te patai: “Ma wai te he e whakatika?”. Ma wai nga roto e whakatika? Ko tona tikanga ma te Karauna ma te Kaunihera a-Rohe me Environment Bay of Plenty.  
Ka pehea te nui o te putea hei whakatika i nga roto? Ko te nuinga kei te ki rahi ake i te 200 miriona. Kaore ano au kia rongo i te nui o te koha o tena o tena o nga ropu nei. Me mataara tatou.  
Na kati. E te iwi naku enei korero i whakatakoto ki mua i te Paremata i tenei wiki tonu nei. I te mohio tonu ahau ahakoa pehea aku korero he turi te Kawanatanga e kore a ia e aro mai. He hiahia noku ki te whakatikatika i nga mea huna. Ko nga korero katoa i hinga. Engari i tona mutunga i whai au i te korero “Kei mate wheke me mate ururoa.” 
Koi nei te ahuatanga o enei mea. Ko te kupu pouri o te Kawanatanga kei te ki ae kua whai a Te Arawa i nga herenga me nga kawenga o te Tiriti o Waitangi; ae i kaha tautoko nei a Te Arawa i te haerenga ki tawahi. Ko Te Hokowhitu a Tu tera; ae i koha a Te Arawa i etahi wahanga o te putea i tukuna mai i te 1922 ki te motu i nga tau toru tekau wha tekau; ae i nganga a Te Arawa ki te mahitahi me te Karauna; ae i kaha ano no Te Arawa ki te tautoko i nga mahi turuhi mo te painga o te motu. Na he aha te hokinga mai? He paku kongakonga.  
I tenei ra kia mohio mai koutou tokorua o matou kei te tautoko i te pire nei ko te tokorua kaore i te whakaae kaore i te whakahe. Kei te marama tonu tatou ki te hiahia o etahi o te kainga o etahi o te iwi. Engari e kore rawa au whakaae ki nga mahi a te Karauna me ana mahi whakaiti kore kore kore rawa! Ko aku raru ki nga korero a wetahi i whakahe nei i tenei tu. Koi nei te hunga i whakaae kia taka mai ko te takutai moana ki raro i te mana o te Karauna ara ko te hunga mahi muru whenua. Me whakairi taku ingoa ki te taha o tera hunga kore rawa! 
E te iwi kia ora mai tatou. He ra ano apopo ka whiti mai te ra. Kua ea te wahanga ki a au. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and to all of us in this House. Welcome to the descendants of Ngati Ohomarangi and to you the board. Greetings to you all. 
What is our purpose for this day? We of Te Arawa have come to this place to remedy a pain that has long lingered in the hearts and souls of our people; that is the ownership of our lakes. Welcome to you the people welcome. 
Our lakes are deeply embedded in our tribal spirit through our songs our proverbs and our history. Let us say that the issue is carved in the very souls of the descendants of Te Arawa. Because of that many would suggest that the ownership was never relinquished. Let that statement stand. 
In 1922 with a vision for a better future in an honourable gesture our elders signed an agreement between Te Arawa and the Crown. What was the basis for that honourable act? It was the ownership of the lakes. 
This issue had its genesis in 1909. At that time Te Arawa turned to the court for a ruling to determine ownership of the lakes. Over time the Crown used stalling tactics to delay the process and in doing so stifle the desires of Te Arawa. Our ancestors were denied access particularly to maps and survey plans that could assist in the just settlement of the issue. In 1920 the Crown approached Te Arawa to negotiate a settlement of claims. 
From there was born an agreement between us and the Crown in 1922 just as we are concluding today. It was thought that benefits would flow to Te Arawa following that agreement but the problem is that justice has not been done. Justice has not been done right through to the present day. So here we are 80 or 90 years on returning a second time—it is a return to the sands that were disturbed at that time. 
This is what the Crown had to say friends not I Te Ururoa. The Crown confessed to its sins. They say yes they set the annuity at £6000 in perpetuity; yes they did not review the yearly annuity and therefore acknowledge a depreciation of the value of the annuity; yes; they also introduced a new species of fish and the end result was the destruction of indigenous species; yes along with the council they determined the nature of the care of the lakes resulting in severe pollution of all the lakes; yes the descendants of Te Arawa were prosecuted for fishing without licences according to the law of the Government; yes despite petitions and delegations by Te Arawa to the Government to the court to the tribunal the Government has refused to remedy that which it has despoiled. 
This is what the Crown says. For my part I agree. It is right and proper that they should bow their heads in shame. And here we are today. Perhaps we should be happy! The Crown has offered an apology. It is only right that he who has erred should repent. But hold it! On the one hand they utter remorse; on the other they repeat their offence. It is said that the words of the night differ from the murmurings of the dawn. 
We have got some money—$10 million. Awesome! Hear hear! However the amount is bound to the fiscal envelope of the Crown taken by it in years past and vigorously rejected by Maori. 
According to those who are knowledgable on these issues we will only ever get 1 percent of the real value of that which was illegally taken. These are mere crumbs when compared with what was lost. Who benefits? It is the Crown the district council and the community. Not Te Arawa! That is the reason for this journey today. Should we rejoice? No! 
We should also give thanks for the return of the lakes. That is great. Wait up—according to the Government the lakes are indeed going to return but not the water. Some of you and those from home have posed the question: “Heck! So what is this thing called a lake if it does not contain any water?”. What a stupid thought that is! 
But the stupidity did not stop there. The statement has been made that the Crown owns the water and the sky above the land. I asked the question: “So who said you owned this thing called the Crown stratum?”. The Minister’s response was that that thought had always been there right from the Land Act 1948. Members need to know that there is no statement about that and that this is the first; this is the first time this statement has been made public.  
Some would say: “What’s the problem?”. Let me put it this way. If it is agreed to here and becomes law the implications will be profound and felt by those other iwi and hapu whose claims will follow ours. 
So if we agree to what the Crown says that those aspects belong to it—even though it has never been tested in court or anywhere else—that is confiscation. As a result of our acquiescence we will become implicated along with the Crown. Leave that thought there. 
The Crown has said that a working-group has been established to revitalise the lakes. According to this bill the committee will consist of members of the district council and Environment Bay of Plenty—and only a mere two from Te Arawa. What arrogance! Firstly only two from Te Arawa and not a mention of the number from those other two groups! Secondly if we are the owners then surely we must be the decision makers. 
Should it not be that the numbers for Te Arawa are equal to the collective numbers of the other two groups? No not in this bill. A final word rests with people other than those who allowed the pollution of the lakes in the first place. It is not as if I am saying to get rid of them. No they should stay but the mana should be with us. 
The Minister said it is not possible for anyone to own water. But according to him the Crown has the authority to determine the usage. Yes the lakes are returned—well at least the land below the water. We should rejoice that we now possess the filth the pollution the excrement left by the Government and the council! This is the excrement that was seen and spoken about by some from home. Faeces became the swimming companion for those bathing in the waters of the Utuhina Stream. 
We should be happy because it was the Crown not Te Arawa that abdicated responsibilities for the pollution of the lakes. So one has to ask the question: “Who will fix it?”. Who will clean up the lakes? It would be appropriate for the Crown and the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty to do that.  
How much would it cost to remedy the situation? Many would say that it is in excess of $200 million but I have not heard about the contribution of these respective groups. Let us be aware. 
Enough! People I set out these concerns in Parliament just this week with the full knowledge that the Government would not listen to or take notice of what I had to say. It was my desire to correct those things that were not nakedly apparent. All that I put forward was voted down but I thought it best to be defeated fighting like a shark rather than to limply surrender like an octopus. 
This is how these things are done. The Crown apology says: yes Te Arawa has honoured its responsibilities and obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi; yes we have contributed to the war efforts overseas; yes we contributed gifts as portions of the annuity for the national good in the 1930s and 1940s; yes we demonstrated a record of cooperation with the Crown; and yes we made a significant contribution to tourism and the wealth of New Zealand. What is the return? Breadcrumbs!  
Today members need to know that two of us will support this bill and two are neither for nor against. We know what some at home some of the people want. But I will never agree to the processes of the Crown and its behaviour of belittling us—never never never. I have no issue with those who may disagree with me and the position I am taking. They are probably the ones who agreed that the foreshore and seabed should come under the Crown—that act of land confiscation. Will I hang my name beside them? No way!  
And so greetings to you the people. Tomorrow is another day and the sun will rise for sure. My part has been done. 
] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for taking a point of order at this point in time and on such an important bill but I think that the Standing Orders require me to raise and bring in issues that we feel need to be brought to your immediate attention. 
Standing Order 104 makes it possible for people to deliver their speech in te reo Maori. What I am not sure about—and I seek the opportunity for you to deliberate and to give us an opinion a view or a ruling at a later stage—is this concern. We have just seen a member take the opportunity as is his right under the Standing Orders to deliver his entire speech of 10 minutes in te reo Maori and then to have that entire speech interpreted. One of the problems that creates is that members are trying to understand the debate and gauge whether the speech in itself throughout its content is in compliance with Standing Orders 110 111 112 113 and 114 and especially with Standing Orders 115 and 116 which are frequently where breaches are. For members to know that they need to know in a more timely manner precisely what is being said. 
Madam Speaker my question is whether you can give the House some guidance to ensure that we are all able to understand such a speech in a more timely manner—in order to ensure that we may have an opportunity to interject where we believe that the speech is not relevant is offensive or insulting or contains unparliamentary language—and that we may have a more timely interpretation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think you have made your point. I made the judgment that on this occasion Maori Party members should be given the opportunity to give their entire speech within te reo so that the full understanding of it could be given. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the honour of taking a call on the third reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill on behalf of United Future. We are of course at the third reading and this is the last time this matter will be debated in Parliament. Therefore it is right to begin by saying that I am sure this will be an occasion of great joy for the majority of the large confederation of the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa. The return of these 13 lakes will restore the traditional relationship between Te Arawa and its lakes. It will also ensure that this relationship will continue for all of the generations to come. It puts right a wrong. It signals on behalf of all New Zealanders our goodwill towards Te Arawa—our aroha—and our best wishes for their future in peace and prosperity. United Future wishes all of those involved in the Te Arawa confederation all the very best for the future. 
This bill contains reference to the Crown apology. Although it is a very good thing and technically correct for the Crown to tender an apology for the past wrongs there is also—as I have mentioned once before in this House—a slight fiction involved in taking that action. In truth it was not the monarch 12000 miles away who wronged Te Arawa by taking ownership of these lakes in controversial circumstances and then putting in place an annuity system with no adjustment even for inflation for all those years. Those actions were actually taken by the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand Parliament. I look forward to the day when we can recognise that and find a way of apologising as a Parliament for the wrongs of the past. This highlights of course an issue that has caused a lot of undue aggression in our nation for some time—that is the position of the Crown in relation to settlements in general. 
In particular this issue came up in the context of the foreshore and seabed debate which was mentioned by Te Ururoa Flavell in his speech a few minutes ago. It is well known that United Future would have liked to see the foreshore and seabed vested not in the Crown but in the public domain. There is an important difference between those two things because “the public domain” suggests that the ownership lies with all of the people of New Zealand whereas “the Crown” in its historical context of being the other party to the Treaty always carries with it the kind of logic that somehow this means removing something from Maori in order to assign it to something that is not Maori. 
But of course in our constitutional arrangements the Crown is simply the symbol of the unity that we all have as New Zealanders. Another way of expressing that notion in the American constitution is the phrase “We the people” and here in New Zealand it could well have been in “the public domain”. I look forward to ongoing constitutional development around that issue because I hope that once all the historical grievances arising out of the Treaty have been settled we can move on to think about the language that we use in this country. In some ways I think we need to put the concept of the Crown behind us and to move forward into a new concept whereby all of us actually feel we are involved in these matters. 
I will give members the example that came out of the previous member’s speech—and this is not a criticism; it is just an illustration of the point I am making. He spoke about Environment Bay of Plenty and the local council that will be involved in the clean-up of the lake. Those organisations are referred to as if they are completely separate from Maori. But of course those organisations are called on to represent all of the people in that district including all Maori. So we always have a perpetuation of this “them and us” language and we have to figure out as a nation I believe a way of getting past that point so that we can build a future of unity together. 
 I also express the hope today that Te Arawa can extend its forgiveness to the New Zealand Government. We have offered an apology in a roundabout way through the Crown for the wrongs of the past. I believe that Te Arawa would do well to extend that forgiveness to our nation because the alternative—that is to refuse forgiveness—can block the ability to bring closure and open the door to the future. It is so important when we get to this point of a settlement that we do start to open the door to a different future as a nation and as a people. 
We human beings cannot advance into a bright future together if we take into that future the wrongs of the past. It does not work that way. That is not human reality; that is not human psychology. We have to be able to say yes we are prepared to put this matter to rest and to let it be in the past. It is reality but it is now a historical reality. When this bill is passed today in this Parliament it should become a historical reality so that we can go forward together. I want therefore to suggest to Te Arawa that their response today should be to lay this matter down. They should straighten their backs and embrace the future in optimism and in hope because if we do not have hope and optimism going into the future then indeed we will have a dismal future. 
I will just comment on the position of the National Party in relation to this bill. I am advised that National intends to vote against this bill on its third reading. I express the thought that National has its own reasons for voting against the bill. United Future on the other hand has been prepared to trust the process that has brought us to this point. A huge amount of research has gone into the bill. It has been looked at from the point of view of fairness and justice and we have worked through that process to this point. At this stage if we were to say no that we would override all of that and vote against the bill on the basis of what I desperately hope would not simply be hair-splitting legalities it would be wrong because there is no future in going forward on that basis. There is no future in my view in respect of even talking about a 1c in the dollar settlement for example on the other side of the argument. We have to embrace the realities we have. 
Let me express this thought to the House. If indeed this settlement bill has been overgenerous towards Te Arawa which is presumably what National is saying—and of course the Maori Party is saying it is not generous enough—and let us suppose that is the assumption that this is not a right thing to do and is overgenerous would it be so difficult so wrong if just for once we were overgenerous to Maori in settling these matters? Would that be a problem for New Zealand’s future? I do not think so. 
I think that we should look at the big picture of where we are going as a nation and at our ability to try to build a strong nation for the future of all New Zealanders. Quite frankly hair-splitting legalities will not get us there. We have to go beyond that; we have to go into goodwill into hope and into optimism. We must have a vision for the future because as you all know one of the Scriptures says that without a progressive vision a nation perishes. We need that progressive vision. I hope that these occasions can become a source of vision for the future so that we can bring closure and go into a good future together. Thank you. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am privileged today to welcome Te Arawa here and to take a very short call on what is a very important bill to those in our region. I defer to the strength and wisdom of my colleagues who are going to take calls after me today. They have achieved an astonishing result. 
Today settles a longstanding grievance. The historical account is now on the record and an apology has been made. This should be a really fulsome and happy day but the actions of other parties have granted us only a certain deep sense of satisfaction of a job completed. National has not helped this process. It has left a legacy of bitter division in our community simply for political gain. National members sloganised this issue and our people were hurt. They came to the shores of Lake Rotorua with one banner saying: “We are one people”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: “Our people”? How can you say that? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Well uncle Manu Bennett told us that we are two people walking one pathway and that is the future that this Government epitomises. National members have also impugned the intelligence and dignity of both the negotiators and the Crown and that is a sad legacy of their contribution to this bill. 
The Maori Party too has sought political leverage over issues like the size of the settlement package the mandating process and now this new issue of the “Crown stratum” definition. This activism has left a people deeply divided and has added another grievance that now requires steadfast leadership. That legacy will be sorted out only by the people of Te Arawa and how they vote in the future. 
I acknowledge my colleagues Margaret Wilson who got new energy into this bill and Mark Burton who picked it up. I acknowledge my Maori colleagues on the Maori Affairs Committee who took the response from all the work the committee did out in the community and quietly and steadfastly carried on with the job. I wish the newly formed Te Arawa Lakes Trust all the best in rebuilding these rifts that have been left behind by Opposition parties. I give assurance to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust that this Government with my support as the electorate MP will work on the signing of a memorandum of understanding to make sure that those bodies on the trust do clean up the waters of our beautiful lakes. 
Justice today has been done. Te Arawa’s dignity remains intact and the tribe lives on. Kia kaha. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 National opposes the third reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill for reasons already advanced by my friends the deputy leader and Mr Henare. We say this bill is a very poor piece of work and we have done our level best to address some of the concerns that we had with the bill particularly in the Committee stage and I will come back to that in a few minutes. 
 It is an important debate and it deserves more than some of the vulgar and crass contributions we have heard from various members this afternoon such as Sue Kedgley the “Empress of Oriental Bay” who accused the National Party of racism which I think is pretty unfair and totally contrary to the facts but the facts never really worry Mrs Kedgley very much. Then we had the contribution from the member for Rotorua Steve Chadwick who has just sat down. When she is sitting in the Chamber she has that beatific smile and looks so sweet and angelic but when she opens her mouth the poison comes vomiting out. We had that from her this afternoon when she accused National members of negativism. 
Perhaps worst of all in the context of what we have just heard was the parsonic contribution made by Mr Copeland. He did not bother to come down to listen to the contributions made by Mr Brownlee and Mr Henare—and very good contributions they were—but simply popped in like the Archangel Gabriel descending into the Chamber and then proceeded to tell us that we were hair-splitting. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is in his first term but I think he should have read the Standing Orders a bit. References to the absence or presence of individual members of Parliament is contrary to the Standing Orders. I ask that that be drawn to his attention and that he desist from such comments. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right. He cannot make reference to the absence of members. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am most grateful to the member for his guidance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I do not think that was called for. The member can stand withdraw and apologise for making that remark. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I withdraw and apologise and will continue on— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise most sincerely to the member for interrupting his speech but the interplay that you have just seen and administered over is precisely the point I was making in my point of order. If we are to allow a speech in te reo to be given fully without interpretation at the moment it is not known if a person has caused offence or is speaking outside of the Standing Orders and therefore the speech is permitted to continue. There seems now to be one standard for debate in English and another standard for debate in te reo Maori; that surely is wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Mark I heard the point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] There is to be silence during points of order. I heard the point that you made to the Speaker and the Speaker made a decision. We have had this issue raised before and the presiding officers have made various rulings. We have had a previous dispute about exactly what you are saying. But the member had made prior arrangements and he wanted the speech to flow. I can assure you Mr Mark that we have dealt with that matter and we will continue to deal with it. I emphasise again that the Speaker made a very clear ruling and she had dealt with it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Obviously I am not commenting on your ruling because it is made but I was going to say in the course of my speech that I really enjoy the contributions of Mr Flavell. It really would be good if we could get simultaneous translation of speeches in this House. The Standing Orders Committee has been dealing with this issue and I know that Mr Tanczos raised it months ago. This debate this afternoon illustrates why we have the issue. 
But I want to go on and say something about the huge contribution made by National to Treaty settlements because while Sue Kedgley talks about justice we actually achieved it right throughout the 1990s. The first and most outstanding Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was Sir Douglas Graham. His record of achievement was simply outstanding: the fisheries settlement the Ngai Tahu settlement and the Tainui settlement. National is not opposed to Treaty settlements but we are opposed to this bill. I lay down a challenge: let any Labour speaker stand up in this place and challenge the record of the National Party on Treaty settlements vis-à-vis the Labour record which is poor by comparison. 
The Committee stage of this debate was a disappointment and there was no attempt by the Minister to address some very important issues. Mr Henare has dealt very comprehensively and carefully with mandate issues so I am not going to dwell on those. But I say—and I will be a prophet of doom—that if mandate questions are not got right there will be no end to strife between the Crown and iwi. I confidently predict—it may not be during my lifetime it may not be for 50 or 60 years—these issues will come back because there are outstanding mandate questions that were not properly addressed and National had some real concerns about that. That is a justice issue—for the benefit of Mrs Kedgley—if ever there was one. 
There were important definitional issues that were not properly addressed. I see my friend Mr Paraone starting to grimace and he is right to grimace because there were those vague references to the Treaty of Waitangi— 
Barbara Stewart 
: It wasn’t a grimace. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It looks like a grimace to me—and there was no attempt as Mr Flavell said to explain this new term “Crown stratum” that appears in this kind of settlement legislation for the first time. That grimace is because of New Zealand First’s performance in the Committee and it was repeated in this Chamber this afternoon. They adopted a position that was more like that of  
Monty Python’s Flying Circus  
than a rational legislator’s debate. They support the bill but they are going to seek to delete the Treaty references in it after Mr Woolerton’s legislation comes back to the House after we have dealt with it in the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
The third major issue that really troubled me was questions about aspects of Part 2. In the Committee stage discussions on Part 2 National members very carefully went through certain clauses for example clause 24 about the rights and obligations of ownership and asked questions. Did we get any answers? Not one— 
Brian Connell 
: No. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No Mr Connell says— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to upset the flow of the member’s speech but he must not deviate from the truth and his words are simply not a correct reflection of what happened in this Chamber 2 days ago. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: It is a matter of debate and—[ 
Interruption 
] I was ruling on the point of order. There will be silence during points of order. Please continue Mr Finlayson. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Thank you; that was a rather poor attempt to interrupt the flow because it is a debating point and it was not properly addressed by the Minister. 
There were important questions about this bill—questions that really do address justice issues at the end of the day because if you do not dot the i’s and cross the t’s but just glide over those issues as if you are in some kind of comatose state— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Do not bring me into the debate. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
:—Madam Assistant Speaker of course I am not referring to you for whom I have enormous respect—these issues will come back to haunt us. But the attitude of the Crown negotiators to Te Arawa basically was to take it or leave it. Mr Flavell outlined those issues and I have to say that on the basis of what he said serious questions of duress arise. The attitude of Government to Parliament has basically been to take it or leave it because the Government thinks it can relax as there appears to be an all-encompassing jurisdictional bar—and I refer the House to clauses 15 and 16 of the bill. But as I have said in Committee and as I have seen many many times in my career as a barrister jurisdictional clauses can be avoided quite easily depending on the circumstances. At the end of the day it always depends on the facts and where there is a will there is a way to get around jurisdictional clauses. 
So there has been no real attempt to address the issues. The Government took the Office of Treaty Settlements template for settlement legislation and applied it to this settlement without giving any real thought to its appropriateness. My good friend Mr Henare with whom I hate disagreeing blames the Office of Treaty Settlements and not the Government but I blame the Government. This is a paint-by-numbers bill by a paint-by-numbers Minister and I compare that with the way in which Sir Douglas Graham approached Treaty settlements. He mastered the detail of the negotiation took part in the negotiation dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s and got the job done properly. We can see that for example with the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998. 
So after all the negotiations this is the end result and I do consider it to be very disappointing. It is a poor piece of work. Time and time again the Minister has referred us to the preamble but when we look at the preamble we see that it makes pretty unfortunate reading. This is not the way a Treaty partner should negotiate. I particularly refer the House to clauses 13 to 18 of the preamble and to the stop-start negotiations because as has already been observed by Mr Henare this is a process that has the effect of grinding iwi under. I have seen it before—delay legal costs emotional costs and the passage of time with senior members of the iwi starting to get sick and tired of it. I have seen that sort of thing in negotiations and no wonder they say: “Well it’s the best we can achieve.” I certainly do not criticise Te Arawa for that. So many negotiations after such a long time producing such a poor piece of work! 
I end as I began by saying that this will not be the end of the matter. At some stage in the future the Crown will have to look at the matter once again. We say that if a bit of effort had been taken it need not have reached this end. National will be opposing the third reading of the bill. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Otira Te Arawa tangata Te Arawa waka nau mai hara mai tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. Tena koutou i haere tawhiti mai i te hau kainga i runga i te rangimarie ki te whakatutuki i tenei to koutou to tatou kereme. Tenei te tu ake i roto i tenei Whare ki te whakamihi ake ki a koutou no reira tena koutou. Ahakoa ra nga piki me nga heke i whakaporearea nei i a koutou i a koutou e hikoi haere ana i tenei huarahi kua tae noa koutou ki tenei haora hei whakatutukihia i nga mahi otira i nga ahuatanga katoa e pa ana ki nga roto. No reira tena koutou. 
Tena hoki koutou nga ropu torangapu i roto i te Whare nei. Tutu mai koutou ki te whakapaoho atu i wa koutou whakaaro me tenei kereme a Te Arawa. Wetahi o nga korero kai te tautoko. Wetahi atu kei te ahua pouri taku ngakau. Kei te ahua pouri taku ngakau i te mea kai konei a Te Arawa. Te ahuatanga o nga korero kare a Te Arawa i konei. No reira korerohia a koutou korero i runga i te whakaaro a kai te ngahere tonu a Te Arawa e noho ana. Kai te he! Kai te he! Kai te he! No reira taku e tu ake nei ki te whakamihi ake ki a ratou kua haere tawhiti mai. 
[ 
To you indeed the people of Te Arawa and the canoe welcome welcome and greetings greetings and greetings to you. Salutations to you who have come from a distance from the home winds in a peaceful frame of mind to complete this claim of yours and ours. I rise in this House to acknowledge you—salutations. Regardless of the trials and tribulations that inconvenienced you as you went down this process you have reached this hour when the work in respect of everything about the lakes will be completed. And so greetings to you. 
My acknowledgments as well to the political parties in this House. You have stood and expressed your views about this claim of Te Arawa. Some contributions were in support and some were a disappointment to me. I was somewhat disappointed because Te Arawa is present. You went on as though they were still in the bush. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! And that is why I stood up to acknowledge those who came from afar. 
] 
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the presence of Te Arawa negotiators in the House today. They have come a long way on a long journey to bring to a close this outstanding claim concerning the lakes. They have succeeded many negotiators before them and whilst many individuals and parties have stood in this House and made comments about the settlement bill some have spoken about Te Arawa as if they were not here. But they are here and if it were not for them we would not be having this debate or discussion today. I want to acknowledge their commitment and everything they have had to endure—the insults the abuse the lack of support on occasions and also the disappointments particularly when they have had to listen to statements from people who should have been supporting them. So I acknowledge their presence. 
I listened to what previous speakers have had to say—and everybody in this House is entitled to express an opinion of one form or another. This is the last opportunity that many of us will have to make comment on this very very important legislation. I am particularly encouraged by some of the comments in the House even by comments made by some National members. I am encouraged by comments made by the United Future speaker by the Greens and by my Labour colleagues. When I say: “Kei te ahua pouri taku ngakau.” I say I am disappointed with the comments by the elected member for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell. I am disappointed because the voice of Te Arawa has been strong and loud and anyone who has not heard it has not been listening. 
 Te Arawa have come on a very very long journey and it is nearing its end. It entered these negotiations in good faith and it has taken total responsibility for their contribution to those negotiations. The outcome of those negotiations is the result of their input and their agreement. I have met with the negotiators and of course we could all say as many speakers have said today we could have done better but Te Arawa said to me that they did well. 
Te Arawa now are not looking towards the past—they are looking towards the future. They have moved and they are moving from grievance mode to development mode. If anybody in this House does not realise it Te Arawa are a very powerful economic force in the Bay of Plenty and have been for many many generations and they are getting stronger. The settlement of the fisheries assets and the distribution to Te Arawa was significant. The lakes settlement the cash-up of the annuity and the compensation to Te Arawa is very significant. The detail of the settlement package in terms of new structures on the lake and the obligations to Te Arawa for those structures is significant economically. 
Over the next few weeks we will be talking about Te Arawa’s historical claim. We have already signed the draft deed of settlement. There is a lot of fine-tuning to do but Te Arawa will get there. But people in this House need to listen to what Te Arawa are saying. They should not treat Te Arawa as if they are ignorant. They have been in this game for a very very long time. They are taken seriously by their people. They are our future—us of Te Arawa. They will construct for us an economic development programme second to none and I am looking forward to that. 
I am committed to ensuring that the next round of negotiations for Te Arawa is enduring and that the post-settlement governance structures that are established to control Te Arawa’s investments are strong and transparent. 
I do not want to talk about the past. The past in terms of the history of Te Arawa the history of the confiscation has been well-traversed throughout this whole process. I say that enough is enough. Te Arawa and the negotiators here today are looking towards the future. I can give members many many examples of where our young people today are benefiting from the decisions made by our kaumatua in days gone by. 
During the negotiations for the cash settlement of Te Arawa’s historical claim I was asked: “What did you do?” in terms of increasing the quantum of Te Arawa. I said: “Well I was very much a part of it. We took the quantum offer from one point to another.” The person said: “Well that’s only $2 million. What’s that?”. I said: “Well let’s put it this way: $2 million for Te Arawa is 400 PhD degrees. You can’t put a value on that.” In terms of Te Arawa going forward that is significant. 
So I say to Te Arawa because I do not have a lot more to say that I am looking to the future as the negotiators here today are doing. We have a powerful history and we live it every day. Everybody who comes into our rohe sees it feels it experiences it. In saying that I want to acknowledge everyone who has played a part in bringing the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill to this point. I acknowledge Sir Douglas Graham who originally opened the negotiations. In particular I acknowledge the contribution of the Speaker of the House the Hon Margaret Wilson who made a decision that we will deal with the lakes settlement as a historical claim. That decision was significant because without it we would not be here today. 
I acknowledge my parliamentary colleague the Hon Mark Burton. He has kept the momentum up. He has kept the negotiations going. He has kept the door open and that is another reason why we are here today. I also thank my parliamentary colleague Dave Hereora the chairman of the Maori Affairs Committee for ensuring that we got on with the business and were not distracted by insignificant flip-flop because there was a lot of it. In fact I thank and acknowledge all the members of the select committee including the New Zealand First representative who did ask some curly questions but he got some straight answers and I am sure he is reasonably satisfied with that. 
I acknowledge the support we have had so far from all the parties who have supported us on this bill. I have nothing more to say except that we of Te Arawa are moving forward. There is a new day coming and at a date determined by Te Arawa we will celebrate and we do know how to celebrate. 
Na runga i tena korero e te Kaihautu mihi atu ana ki tenei Whare otira ki a Te Arawa tangata haere tawhiti mai. No reira tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Upon that statement Madam Speaker I extend greetings to this House and indeed to the people of Te Arawa who came from a distance. So greetings to you greetings to you and to all of us. 
] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Sharples Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Maori Party 1 (Flavell). 
Bill read a third time. 
Standards Amendment Bill 
Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Standards Amendment Bill and the Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their consideration of these bills and also thank all those people who made submissions to the select committee. Standards and conformance are critically important in both the New Zealand and international contexts. Consumers are demanding safer products of a higher quality and this has resulted in higher minimum standards. Increased technological change requires a more rapid development and amendment of standards. Also an increase in social and environmental concerns has led to standards applying in areas of the economy not previously covered. At the same time providing independent confirmation that a product or service complies with the relevant standard has become increasingly important for business success. That is why these bills are so important. 
Although New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure is well respected internationally maintaining the confidence of our trading partners in it is essential. The key purpose of these bills is to ensure that our infrastructure remains up to date with international best practice. Therefore most of the amendments are largely technical in nature. The bills clarify the roles of the standards and testing laboratory registration councils and improve their efficiency and effectiveness. 
The Standards Amendment Bill will clarify and expand the scope of the Standards Council functions to include the preparation of codes of practice handbooks specifications and other material currently produced by international standards development bodies. The bill extends the development of standards to include minimising environmental risks and promoting social responsibility in a manner consistent with our international obligations. It also includes improving the process for nominating organisations to make appointments to the council. 
The Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill will delineate the roles of the Testing Laboratory Registration Council and the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. This is the one urgent amendment. The bill clarifies that the council does not have the ability to accredit certification bodies and confirms that it does have the ability to accredit inspection bodies. It also makes the council’s provision of certification services discretionary rather than mandatory. 
When the Minister Lianne Dalziel introduced these amendments to the House she indicated that a major review of standards and conformance was to be undertaken. This has been progressing and has indicated that our infrastructure is generally sound. But there is always room for improvement. The Minister has now released a discussion document that identifies a set of issues for further consideration and provides options for addressing those. The provisions of these bills are however an important first step in ensuring that New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure continues its excellent international reputation into the future. I commend the bills to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 National opposes these bills on three grounds. Firstly we do not believe that subjective standards should be introduced that raise expectations but are not able to deliver. I will expand on that later. The second reason we oppose these bills is that the Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel and the officials have not addressed the unacceptable position whereby companies that now seek accreditation from the new agency will have a tenfold fee increase without receiving any additional benefit from it. The third issue is the failure—or the officials’ acceptance that it is not possible—to quantify compliance costs. It is totally unprofessional for Government departments to say that as it is too difficult to quantify costs they will assume that additional compliance costs will not be incurred. That approach is simply not acceptable. Let me expand further on those three grounds. 
The Standards Amendment Bill expands the Standards Council’s objective to develop standards by including two additional objectives. One is to minimise environmental risk and the other is to promote social responsibility. Both of those terms are very subjective. I have a vision of our officials going overseas and continuing a very long discussion with other international delegates on how to achieve those objectives and then on coming back probably developing all sorts of standards—I cannot say “standards” because I do not believe that we can develop standards—to achieve them. We would end up with a whole lot of processes. Companies would be told that they had to have another folder sitting in their offices to demonstrate that they had gone through the process of adhering to those standards and that once the process was finished—that is when they had finished ticking all the boxes—somehow the environmental risk would have been minimised and the companies would have done their work. 
We were not able to get satisfactory answers about this matter from the officials during the select committee process. They admitted that it was a matter of “suck it and see” but I do not think that New Zealand businesses and consumers should be led to these false expectations and they should not be burdened with additional costs when there is no tangible of way of achieving those high expectations. 
The second point is more serious. It is about the unacceptable fee increases. The Commerce Committee heard a submission from Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand. That organisation is already in existence. It is approved by the Director-General of Health to audit all the service areas under the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001. It is already accredited under the current organisation International Accreditation New Zealand. One can assume that as the Auditor-General approved this agency to carry out the work we should be able to rely on the fact that the Auditor-General and the department have confidence in the competence of this organisation. 
In its submission to the Commerce Committee this organisation pointed out that the fee for certification by International Accreditation New Zealand for a 3-year period was $18915. But as soon as it has to get certification under the agency called the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand the certification fee will jump 10 times to $155823. That is the question. What can be achieved by a fee increase of that amount? What value could the new agency add to the organisation that would warrant a fee increase of $130000? 
Sandra Goudie 
: They’ll go offshore. 
PANSY WONG 
: Yes absolutely; it will force people to go overseas. When Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand raised this problem with the Ministry of Economic Development the ministry asked the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand to review its fees. Well there is some good news which is that the fee suddenly came down by $20000. That actually makes one worried does it not? One complaint and the fee drops by $20000. But even then the organisation is still faced with an overnight increase in the fee alone of $110000. And we can guess where that increase in fees will be recovered from. No doubt the organisation will charge all the health service providers additional fees for carrying out their audits. Also we can guess where the service providers will recover their additional costs from—and I do not see any additional benefit coming with it. I think it will be from the Government’s Budget. 
This afternoon we were told there had been a leaked email. We are told that if district health boards do not cut a fixed number of patients from the waiting lists they incur penalties of millions of dollars. So I can imagine that the $100000 would be recovered in the same way—by cutting the number of people waiting for operations from the waiting lists. But this organisation like others is facing not just this quantifiable fee increase; it is also facing compliance costs. 
I got really worried because the Minister of Commerce who is the Minister sponsoring these bills on the one hand said that she is carrying out a vertical horizontal dynamic review of compliance costs with the aim of cutting them and making life easier for small business and on the other hand said in the business compliance statement that came as part of the Standards and Conformance Bill that that is the best her officials can do. The officials say that people will adjust to rising compliance costs. 
But the worrying thing is what they went on to say which was that there may also be some confusion in the market. They said that as a result of these changes particularly for the clients who have been certified by the affected certification body it is not possible to quantify the size of these compliance costs. Well it is easy for officials to say it is not possible to quantify the size of these compliance costs; service providers—real people out there—actually have to live with the increases in compliance costs. 
The worst thing is the solution of the Ministry of Economic Development staff who reckon that these compliance costs will be mitigated by the officials writing to the clients who have been certified by the affected certification body to explain that. So somehow a letter from the Ministry of Economic Development to those business clients will mean that the compliance costs will disappear. I actually suggest that the Minister of Commerce should just instruct the officials in the Ministry of Economic Development to write a letter to all people who are in business in New Zealand because that seems to me to be their solution to cut compliance costs. 
The National Party is totally dismayed and disappointed with the Standards Amendment Bill. It protests on behalf of business particularly small businesses against this subjective piece of legislation that will increase costs without giving any benefit to them at all. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the third reading of the bills arising from the Standards and Conformance Bill I want to acknowledge the fine work done by my most excellent colleagues particularly Pansy Wong in what is essentially a summing-up exercise of our concerns. I want to reiterate some of the many points already raised. 
Firstly what is the reason for the change? The explanatory note of the Standards and Conformance Bill states: “This Bill is an omnibus Bill that amends the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 to align … with international standards and conformance norms and practices.” So what are the international standards and conformance norms and practices that require parliamentary time and use of taxpayers’ money? What is this most serious and objectionable transgression being perpetrated by the current system? Here in New Zealand we have the most awful practice of having two entities with the function of registering certification bodies. Is that not just awful? Well that is the reason for this change. So I ask members to please take a moment to appreciate the ludicrousness of that. 
The only thing in this legislation that gives a reason for the changes appears to be the fact that international practice is to have only one body in any country with the function of registering certification bodies. There is no rule. There is no set requirement. It is just the fact that other countries only have one so we could not possibly have two. We now have to just go along with what everybody else is doing and have one. I have seen nothing that suggests there is any sort of problem with having two entities. 
In fact I would suggest the contrary applies. I can see a bigger problem arising out of a change to having only one entity and that is of course the increased compliance costs—costs that submitters took great pains to set out for the Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel but that have largely been ignored. We can just ask Telarc whose accreditation costs are equal to 50 percent of its 2004-05 annual profits. The impact of this legislation will see those costs rise 30 percent extra. That is a huge cost to Telarc and will be a consequence of this legislation. As my learned colleague Pansy Wong has said we have just to ask Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand whose costs under this legislation go from $18000 to $155000. So much for this Government trying to claim the high ground about reducing compliance costs! It has done the absolute opposite. The only answer that this Government has to anything in terms of compliance costs is to increase them. 
This legislation on the pretext of meeting not a standard or a requirement but some bureaucrat’s bright idea is now creating a monopolistic situation where costs can be loaded because people wanting accreditation will have nowhere else to go. The Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand the new sole entity identifies itself as a non-profit entity and has a membership of 10. Six of those are appointed by the Australian Government three of those are appointed by the New Zealand Government and one is the chairperson—and who knows where that person will be appointed from? The principal aim of the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand is to facilitate international trade. I might add here that the administration of the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand is in Australia so I presume that all the profits that are accrued after costs go to Australia and not to New Zealand apart from the fees that may be paid to the three representatives from New Zealand who are on the board. 
Perhaps a Minister might like to take a call and explain what happened to the level of standards and accreditation that applied to the importation of Australian rock melon. My learned colleague Shane Ardern has highlighted to the New Zealand public an example of a biosecurity breakdown with the discovery of fruit fly eggs in Australian rock melon released for sale in our supermarkets. That is just another example of the breakdown in our biosecurity systems and came from our National biosecurity spokesperson Shane Ardern. So where were the standards around the importation of that given that the primary role of the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand is accreditation and standards for international trade? Australian rock melon coming into our country is international trade so where are the rules around that? 
Biosecurity New Zealand assured bee-keepers that the import health standards on Australian honey were robust enough to allay fears about European foul brood. Yet Australian rock melons containing potentially disastrous fruit fly material passed through those same import health standards. Despite criticism from the Auditor-General about import standards and container checks nothing has changed. The fact that insects were discovered should have meant that the fruit was not released into New Zealand’s environment. Jim Anderton should be calling for an immediate investigation into how that occurred. 
It is ironic that Australia has refused to import New Zealand apples on the scientifically spurious grounds that they might have fire blight yet Australia’s imports are posing a major threat to this country that could cost us millions of dollars and here we are setting up in this legislation a single entity that has predominantly Australian membership and only three representatives from New Zealand. With the fruit fly discovery we have seen a breakdown in our biosecurity. Where is the real confidence that the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand will look after New Zealand’s interests when we have only three members on its board? So I have major concerns. 
I am really pleased that National is opposing this legislation because I think in time to come we will see it go against us. It will cost our exporters dearly through accreditation costs. Those costs have already been outlined to the Minister and neither she nor this Government is fronting up to the costs that this legislation will incur. Telarc put through some very good recommendations. It recommended that competition should be maintained by allowing International Accreditation New Zealand to offer management systems accreditation and that has been ignored. Failing that Telarc recommended that a mechanism is included within the Act either to regulate the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand’s fees for accreditation of certification bodies or to provide an independent fee dispute arbitration process. There must be some form of control of what that body can charge. Along with its predominantly Australian membership as I have already outlined that is a major concern and one that the Minister should have addressed but has failed to do so. 
The other major concern is around the new additions to our standards: minimising environmental risk and promoting social responsibility. I highlighted this concern in talking about cars. It is now coming to public attention that small cars although they may be seen as environmentally friendly because of their reduced fuel consumption are more dangerous than larger cars because occupants are less protected by the structure of the vehicle. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Why is that? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The structure of the smaller vehicles puts the occupants more physically at risk if they have an accident with another vehicle. So on the one hand there may be an environmental benefit but on the other hand people are significantly put at risk. So what is going to weigh in the balance here in terms of the environmental risk against social responsibility and protecting people and their lives? That will be something that I think this Government will certainly struggle with. 
 The legislation seems like a lot of do-good nonsense. I am concerned about it because the standards are meant to be set with all of the participants having an input and agreeing to them. The Minister has already said that 80 percent are required to participate in the decision or otherwise the board makes it. I have some concerns about that. I do not think the standards are getting the full input from the general public or interested parties that they should get. I do not think the public have continuing confidence in this Government to put the right measures and controls in place. I think the water quality standards are a fine example of that lack of public confidence in the Government’s ability to set those standards. Communities want to make those decisions for themselves. The Government wants to try to control everything and it is going to do that through standards. The Minister has greater powers under this legislation and I think that will be to the detriment of New Zealand in the future in the way in which we set our standards. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this debate. New Zealand First supports the third reading of this legislation. It is important to all of those who are involved in industry—the export industry and New Zealand’s domestic industry—so that they can manufacture goods and products and provide services to an internationally recognised standard. It is absolutely essential in today’s world to be able to ensure that customers can have complete confidence in the product they are purchasing. That confidence can be achieved by ensuring the product has been manufactured according to the specified audited standards of an international certification body. It is always an external auditing body that ensures those standards are being met by inspecting the documentation the procedures and the processes that are an integral part of the product. 
The standards and conformance infrastructure that exists supports New Zealand’s trade health and safety and environmental objectives. It is absolutely essential to ensure that international and domestic confidence are maintained in the infrastructure that exists in New Zealand by aligning the functions of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council with international norms and practices. This legislation reflects that New Zealand will have a joint accreditation system with Australia—the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand—to register the certification bodies. International practice requires that there is only one registering certification body. We must ensure that certification is consistent. 
We have to emphasise here that product registration is definitely not compulsory for products that are exported. It is a business cost that a person or a business picks up and decides to do. It is not mandatory. Rather certification shows a business’s customers that it is very serious about product or service quality consistency and manufacturing practices. It shows that the business has the practices and the procedures in place to produce a consistently good-quality product every time. It enables the manufacturer to trace the product from the initial raw ingredients right through to the consumer—from the farm gate to the plate. When a business is able to carry out this type of analysis it is very evident that very detailed systems have to be in place. Of course we have to have the required manuals to follow in this instance. 
We know that costs are a very necessary part of this regime and they are usually built into the product cost. Costs themselves depend on the size of the business because auditing in itself takes time. It is a very laborious job and one that definitely needs a lot of patience and takes time. We believe that this procedure has rapidly become absolutely essential in today’s world. Overseas customers in particular expect that accreditation and the processes to be in place. We must remind the previous speaker Sandra Goudie that doing business overseas has definitely changed over the last few decades. The old adage of “Near enough is good enough” does not stack up any more. Internationally recognised and accredited products are a part of the new way of operating. New Zealand has to keep pace with the rest of the world if we want to compete on a level footing for export markets. This legislation brings us up to speed. 
There is one issue of concern to New Zealand First and that is the point that was expressed in National’s minority report which is attached to the legislation. New Zealand First has always resisted provisions and objectives to promote items that are not directly quantifiable. That type of provision is difficult if not impossible to implement and then audit against. 
New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is a very good first step. We need to continue working in this very important area into the future. Our overseas customers increasingly require that. New Zealand First supports the legislation. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak against the Standards Amendment Bill and the Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill. The bills are not supported by National largely because they fall short of the mark like so many of the Labour-led Government’s supposed initiatives. When will the Government ever get it right? Where and why does the Government not get it right? The answer to those questions will be a topic of increasing public interest I have no doubt over the next 3-week adjournment and beyond. 
In the meantime in this the third reading we can reflect on the passage of this legislation which was formerly the Standards and Conformance Bill. I note the kind comments from those on the other side of the House about the work the Commerce Committee did on this legislation and I appreciate those because the legislation indeed required a lot of attention. It has been examined by the committee. I note the adverse minority report and the comments therein and I will be addressing those during the next few minutes. 
The legislation seeks to develop systems that will be of assistance in developing and ensuring the integrity of New Zealand’s setting and maintaining of standards—a very important aspect of our commercial life. But it goes not quite far enough. A number of issues raised by submitters to the committee highlighted that and we have heard a number of speakers in this House address aspects of the legislation. We heard in detail from my colleague and friend the Hon Dr Nick Smith who spoke on the vacillations of certain players in the timber industry where truth itself seems to have been compromised and when anyone who purports to present it afresh is put under incredible pressure not to speak up. 
Hon Member 
: They were sacked. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: They were sacked. One of the advantages of entering Parliament following a fair stretch of a career in business and commerce is that one does not have too many illusions over the need for authoritative standards to be set for public protection. Again this legislation falls short of the mark in achieving those. If one also has experience in dealing with the standards—or lack of them—in jurisdictions overseas then one can see the experienced level of protection that is required to protect the innocent the unassuming and the trusting. This legislation falls short of the mark in providing that. 
I never expected to hear in this House revelations of such an appalling lack of standards in the building industry as were detailed by Dr Nick Smith during a speech on this legislation. The reality is that ordinary people without an in-depth knowledge of building materials and that which constitutes an effective remedy for rot need protecting—and I include myself in that category of people who do not have the capacity time inclination or knowledge to look beyond the claims made for a product on the manufacturer’s label. 
It is clear that we are now living in a new era—an era when things have been changed and socially structured to meet the ideological requirements of the present Labour Government. Instead of being able to depend on things as we used to terms such as “buyer beware” have suddenly taken on a whole new meaning. We should now beware not only of faulty products but also of not being able to depend on the standards that have been set. The legislation falls short of the mark in correcting that. 
We heard of the leaky homes disaster which affected 15000 homes. We heard that it is a calamity of a scale equal to the Napier earthquake. Standards New Zealand was created as a consequence of that earthquake. Surely the adjustments in this legislation before us now should seek to do more than just tinker and modify the standards. Again the efforts have fallen short of the mark. 
The legislation’s key provisions will clarify the situation regarding the accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories and certification services. The requirement to have those services is a very important element in ensuring New Zealand’s competitive edge in an international environment. Our products and services have to be of a standard that will reflect a quality that can be depended on. The availability of a sound and efficient standards and conformity assessment infrastructure is a key element for ensuring success in not only export matters. We have to have the means of ensuring that local people and local users can develop confidence in domestic products so that those products are not unfairly displaced by imported substitutes. Our standards have to be rigorous and recognised internationally and we have to use testing procedures that withstand international assessment and critical analysis. 
Again there is a haunting echo to these words as one gives consideration to recent events emanating from this House. Those events are repeatedly being reported in the media as showing a lack of standards in the New Zealand political arena— 
Shane Jones 
: Oh rubbish! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —it is not rubbish—be they associated with Mr Phillip Field or with the questions addressing the use of public funds in election campaigns. 
Shane Jones 
: Exaggeration! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is a sort of stain I say to Shane Jones on the floor of the House. It is a stain that is at risk of spreading outside and indeed is at risk of staining our reputation overseas. How such an ethical lapse supports the sort of legislation we are looking at at present is a bit hard to imagine. 
But to return to the legislation I say that there are continuing concerns from this side of the House over the addition of the terms “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility” to the legislation. I sit on the Commerce Committee and I have not heard members opposite make anything like a satisfactory explanation of what the implications of adding those terms will be. How are the concepts of “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility” to be applied to the establishment of standards and laboratory testing? How will those references be applied in a scientific sense to determine the criteria to be used in relation to testing and certifying products processes and services? It seems a very subjective measurement to me. 
Let us see what the Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel said about it. In introducing the legislation she said that the technical amendments in it will amend two Acts: the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972. Dealing with the amendments to the Standards Act Ms Dalziel said that they are designed to ensure that international and domestic confidence in New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure are maintained. She said: “the Standards Council through its operational arm Standards New Zealand develops and publishes standards that are agreed specifications for products processes performances or services.” She said that the amendment would: “clarify and expand the scope of the council’s functions to include the preparation or recommendation of codes of practice handbooks specifications and other material produced by international standards bodies.” And then—here we go; here is the kicker—she stated: “The bill will also extend the development of standards in a manner consistent with New Zealand’s international trade obligations to include minimising environmental risks and promoting social responsibility.” I find that to be a fictitious suggestion. 
We have heard in detail from my colleague Pansy Wong about the cost and cost recovery aspects of this legislation which are a concern not just to the Opposition but to those who anticipate having to meet the legislation. I really share her concerns. Let us take the example of a submission made to the committee by Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand. Under the International Accreditation New Zealand system that organisation’s total costs for 3 years would be $18915. Under the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand— 
Pansy Wong 
: How much? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Does the member really want to know how much it will cost under the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand? Members should remember that the first figure I gave was $18915; the new figure under the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand is $155823—10 times as much. 
To conclude I say that this legislation falls short of what is required—it will not do. A far more substantive reform is required. Such a reform needs to be able to address the matters that were raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It needs to reflect the sorts of standards brought into being initially in 1932 following the Napier earthquake. It needs to be leading legislation that governs the standards in those areas that it is specifically designed to deal with. It needs to reach beyond where it is at the moment. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Standards Amendment Bill and the Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bills read a third time. 
Business of the House 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
I move that Georgina Beyer be the Chairperson of the forthcoming Committee session. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 45. 
Motion agreed to. 
Securities Legislation Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 13 September. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I congratulate you Madam Chairperson on becoming the fourth Assistant Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament. We are making history in New Zealand—this is a very historical moment. Last night I was 25 seconds into my speech and I invited the listeners to come back this afternoon to continue listening to it. I welcome back the Chairman who is the properly elected Deputy Speaker of the House. Certainly the Government is in disarray. Only National’s Deputy Speaker is in the Chamber and it is not even 6 p.m. So everybody is rushing away. Well I am glad that National Party members are hard-working and take their part seriously. 
National supports the Securities Legislation Bill which has an aim to increase inspire and enhance the confidence of investors in New Zealand’s capital and securities markets. I have one complaint about the time taken to bring the bill to the second reading and Committee stage. It has been sitting on the Order Paper for a whole year after it was reported back from the Commerce Committee. One of the provisions relates to additional disclosure by investment advisers and in the light of three very high-profile collapses of financial companies the public would have benefited if this legislation had been passed earlier. There would have been greater disclosure requirements of investment advisers. 
I say that because after Provincial Finance withdrew its prospectus to invite people to invest in that company $9.5 million was invested in that company. That shows that a lot of investment advisers out there are not properly qualified or whatever. I hope the Minister will not take as long to introduce the second part of the complementary legislation for registration of those investment advisers. 
I also comment that we passed this legislation to inspire confidence in investors to invest in our capital and securities markets but it will not work. We saw just yesterday the sacking of the electricity commissioner because he stood up to the Government wanted to do his job independently and wanted to inspire confidence in the working of the electricity industry. The Minister said: “No way!”. The Government did not know the answer but it wants to be popular so if the electricity commissioner wants to do his job independently objectively and according to the legislation well that is not good enough for the Minister. So the commissioner was sacked. 
I doubt after we pass this legislation and the Securities Commission wants again to adhere to the legislation whether confidence will be inspired. Once again I ask how with political interference this legislation will be helpful in inspiring confidence. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Securities Legislation Bill and given that we are looking at the title I would like to recall the central objective because I do not think it is contested on this side of the Chamber. The objective is to strengthen our capital markets. We have structurally weak capital markets. Members may recall the Ernst and Young study that put New Zealand 21st out of 22 OECD economies in 2005 in terms of the capital raised through initial public offerings. If we look at the NZX and go back 10 years we see that market capitalisation was 60 percent of GDP which was not a stellar result. Today it is a little under 40 percent and if we compare that with Australia with a market capital of 150 percent of its much larger GDP we see the dimension of the problem. So we do have structurally weak capital markets and this bill is an attempt to address some aspects of that problem. 
Of course I have to say in passing that the answers lie in doing more than just talking about economic transformation. But I understand we are at that phase of the electoral cycle where the Government is engaging in a nice little conversation with the electorate about redistribution politics and not about the next phase of wealth creation. We know where that leads us. It leads us to where we were in the 1960s and 1970s: back towards sclerosis. We have been there before and that is where we are heading. 
On this issue yes there are some structural weaknesses that this bill is addressing and on balance National thinks it is a move in the right direction. We all understand that for capital markets to function properly investors have to have confidence in the integrity of those markets. We understand that confidence is important for the institutional investors right through to the mom and pop investors and even perhaps down to the proverbial bellboy—by legend when he is in the share market it is time to sell everything. 
So the bill takes some steps to strengthen the integrity of our systems and does a number of sensible things; that is why the National Party is supporting it. For example adoption of the standard of civil liability in this bill has the promise of providing an easier juridical path for pursuing remedies to insider-trading practices. At the same time we seek to introduce in this bill a penalty regime that is well anything but a slap across the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket. Quite severe penalties are introduced by this bill and we have to be sure that certain other compensatory changes are taken in the legislation. I think there are some important steps in that respect. 
This legislation is about proportionality and it is about fairness; tidying it up so that it applies only to serious offences is one of those steps in the right direction. Equally the provisions for the three regulatory authorities that have statutory responsibilities for pursuing misleading and deceptive conduct—that is the Securities Commission the Takeovers Panel and the Commerce Commission—are a very sensible change and we welcome that. 
I guess my main concern—and it is not original; it is shared by a number of the submitters many of whom are extremely well informed—relates to the unintended effects of legislation of this nature. We are certainly not helping our weak capital markets if in adopting this bill we frighten the horses if you like. I can see that a lot of considerations have been given to this legislation and some of those considerations move us in the right direction—for example the improved standards of defence. 
If I may just shorten my speech I think what we need to be sure about here is that we are ready to come back and have another look at this; it is a work in progress. There are still some problems with the legislation but on balance the National Party supports it. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title clause of the Securities Legislation Bill. The purpose of the bill is to increase confidence in New Zealand’s capital markets. How can a few words do that? May I suggest phrases like “The buck stops here.” by Harry Truman “My word is my bond.” and “By our work we will be known.” Those undertakings are the sorts of statements that have been used in previous decades by people charged with leading Governments commercial organisations and community groups to provide increased confidence. I would guess that no members in this Parliament—indeed I would guess that few people listening—are unfamiliar with those phrases. They are phrases that would be nice to hear coming from the Government side of the Chamber. 
In company with other members of the 2005 intake I have been privileged to serve in this Parliament just a few days short of a year. What a journey! [ 
Interruption 
] My companions over there have made it with me. It has been like a train journey—sometimes going like a goods train and sometimes going like an express. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.