Volume 650 Week 86 - Tuesday 23 September 2008(continued on Thursday 25 September 2008) 
Volume 650 Week 86 - Tuesday 23 September 2008(continued on Thursday 25 September 2008) 
[Volume:650;Page:19103] 
Tuesday 23 September 2008 
( 
continued on Thursday 25 September 2008 
) 
Walking Access Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 New Zealand Walking Access Commission ( 
continued 
)  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress and sit again presently 
. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Te Arawa tapu Te Arawa mana Te Arawa waka Te Arawa iwi tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you all hallowed Te Arawa powerful Te Arawa Te Arawa canoe and Te Arawa people greetings 
.]  
I greet Te Arawa its mana its chiefs and its people. Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa represents the largest group of people to reach a comprehensive Treaty settlement with the Crown. I acknowledge the tipuna and the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa on whose behalf people are here today who have carried the grievances for so long. I acknowledge the presence of the negotiators and trustees of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa who represent each of the 11 iwi and hapu of the affiliate Te Arawa and I thank them once again for their perseverance and patience on the long road from the first deed of settlement in 2006 to this last hurdle for this settlement legislation. 
The third reading of this bill is a significant occasion for the Crown and for the people of our country. It was the Hon Margaret Wilson who began in December 2002 the dialogue between the Crown and the central North Island claimants on how Treaty claims in the region could move forward. With the assistance of the Hon David Caygill in the earlier discussions that dialogue reached the stage where mandating and pre-negotiations could begin in mid-2003. After many months of intensive and thorough mandating hui the Kaihautu Executive Council submitted its deed of mandate to the Crown in December 2003 which was duly recognised in April 2004. The Crown and the Executive Council then signed the terms of negotiation. 
Since then much has happened which has led to some delays on the road to the settlement legislation. Much of 2007 was spent considering the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal into the settlement and discussing how best to proceed. However with the entrance into the frame late last year of the Central North Island Iwi Collective which was much welcomed by the Crown there has been significant and positive progress with the affiliate Te Arawa and all central North Island iwi. Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa has made a significant compromise by passing the final decisions about most of its forestry redress over to what would be the largest forestry collective in the country for their benefit and the benefit of other central North Island iwi. In return the Crown has maintained and enhanced the value of the affiliate’s original settlement. 
At this point I am reminded again of a phrase used by Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa’s chief negotiator when confronted with the idea of making major changes to the affiliate Te Arawa deal to accommodate the interests of other central North Island iwi. Rawiri Te Whare in his open-minded response to this proposition from the Crown said: “we are willing to be flexible if the Crown is willing to be generous.” I think both parties performed well in that regard given the wide range of interests and the extremely tight time frames that have been satisfied to reach this point. I also believe that this settlement can be celebrated as a well-tested robust and sustainable deal negotiated with humility and consideration for the affiliate’s neighbouring iwi. 
The Crown has learnt important lessons from this experience and will be infusing those lessons into settlement negotiations into the future. The first lesson is that we can be more flexible within the policy framework around negotiations. The second lesson is that we need flexibility to deal appropriately with a whole region when we negotiate settlements within that region. Because of the success of the affiliate Te Arawa and central North Island settlements we have been able to reach agreements in principle with Ngati Manawa and to begin negotiations with Ngati Makino and Waitaha—indeed we expect to announce agreements in principle with those two groups in the very near future—Tapuika Ngati Rangiwewehi Raukawa and Ngai Tuhoe. With relatively minor adjustments made to the settlement process we have enabled these groups to come to the table at the right time in order to ensure that their interests are protected when we negotiate with their neighbours. This is achieving major results. 
The package in this settlement is substantive. In addition to the quantum of $38.6 million and the entitlement to a similar level of accumulated rentals determined according to the mana whenua process of the central North Island collective the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu will receive a formal apology from the Crown for historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi an amended financial redress package to reflect Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa’s participation in the central North Island collective settlement the transfer of 19 areas of Crown-owned land of special significance to the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu and redress that will enable increased input into management over Crown-owned land and protocols with various Government agencies. 
I am very pleased and humbled to acknowledge all those of Te Arawa and the Crown who have worked to make this day possible. In particular I would like to acknowledge Rawiri Te Whare who cannot be here today because he is overseas—taking a well-deserved holiday I hope. But I recognise the other leaders in the gallery today. Rawiri’s tenacity and wisdom and his leadership over the past several years have steered the claim through some very challenging times. I also acknowledge the chairman of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Eru George. 
I express my thanks to my predecessor the Hon Mark Burton for his commitment to seeking the resolution of Te Arawa’s claims. I am also grateful for the assistance of my colleagues including the Minister of Conservation who has proved flexible yet firm in defence of conservation; the Associate Minister of Finance who has proved firm and then flexible; the Minister of Maori Affairs; and the Associate Ministers in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I also pay particular tribute to the Crown officials in this case—a joint move between particularly Treasury and the Office of Treaty Settlements led by a very senior Treasury official Mark Jacobs. 
I look forward to seeing this bill becoming law and the formal transfer of redress around the middle of next year in tandem with the central North Island collective settlement. Settlement date for the central North Island collective is 1 July and it is therefore planned that this bill will come into operation on 2 July. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
:  
Te Arawa waka Te Arawa iwi tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
To the Te Arawa canoe to the Te Arawa people greetings to you greetings to you greetings to us all. 
]  
I greet my relatives in the gallery. This is a proud day for them for us and I offer my congratulations again as I did in the first reading debate. Having been involved with this process for some years now I know how difficult it is finally for an iwi to reach this stage and those who are sitting in the gallery today can rightly feel proud of themselves for what they have achieved. 
I want to read the text of the apology in the bill because obviously without the apology it would be very hard for any settling group to move forward. Clause 8 “Text of apology” states: “(1) The Crown recognises the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of the Affiliate in pursuit of their claims for redress justice and compensation and makes this apology to the members of the Affiliate to their ancestors and to their descendants. (2) The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to the Affiliate for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles acknowledged in section 7. (3) The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions over the generations which have undermined tribal structures and had a damaging impact on the landholdings and development of the Affiliate. (4) Accordingly the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs and assist the process of healing with this settlement and looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with the Affiliate.”  
Thereupon lies the platform that enables Te Arawa to move forward from today and to do so in a new spirit of cooperation and engagement with the Crown. With that apology the Crown on behalf of the people of New Zealand atones for the wrongs it has committed against Te Arawa—and that is hugely important—and to itself then restores some of the honour lost when these breaches occurred basically starting from 1867. The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill is the final settlement of all historical claims of the iwi and hapu represented by Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. It results from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992 and it is made up of a package that the Hon Dr Cullen has basically put forward this morning. 
It is important for all to know particularly those within the Te Arawa area that no private land is involved in the redress only Crown assets. It is also important for the wider community to know that with the passing of this bill into law the ability for Te Arawa henceforward to bring further any matter that results from the claims that are settled here is gone. So I hope that the people of Rotorua and the wider surrounds see this as the positive step that it is because it is positive. 
Indeed the settlements that have been in place now since the early 1990s under the stewardship of the Rt Hon Douglas Graham have proven that these settlements are not just for Maori—they are not just for the tribe that settles—they are for the wider community and they are for New Zealanders. As I say they are something that we all can be proud of as a small country. Other jurisdictions look to us—they are quite admiring of our efforts in this regard—and all New Zealanders can be proud. 
I want to make reference to the select committee hearings. There will be those who made submissions on matters that we traversed yesterday in the Committee stage who will still be feeling aggrieved. I would like the affiliate to consider that the representatives—the trustees of this settlement—endeavour to bring into the settlement those who still lie outside of it because in the end the children the mokopuna and the tamariki are all ours and they all deserve to benefit. So to have some sitting to one side is of no benefit to anybody. I know that my whanaunga some of whom are here today will endeavour to do that—to bring into the fold of this settlement which is a hugely important settlement those who still sit outside it. I commend to the leadership that for the well-being of the tribe going forward they put those matters to the forefront of their minds once this bill has passed into law. 
I am very proud to be a member of this House when these settlements go through. Indeed the Treaty settlement process was a major reason for my entering Parliament in the first place. Now I see in the House settlements that emanate from my own area and I am very pleased that the present Government has negotiated these. It puts me in a position where I can offer some praise and take some pride in them without looking like I am taking any praise for myself. I know the Maori members on the Labour side understand that. This settlement will be a great boost for the central North Island together with the “Treelords” deal which we will be considering shortly. With the issues surrounding the Waikato River which flows into our area—which we will also be considering later in the day—these are very huge steps forward. 
I commend the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for the vigour the enthusiasm the passion and the understanding he has brought to this process in the last 12 months. I suppose I can only say that it is a pity he was not in that position earlier and I say that without any disrespect to his colleagues who held the position before him. But this process does require passion. It requires an understanding of the complex issues involved—and they are hugely complex—and it requires enthusiasm compassion and a love for the people of New Zealand for these matters to move forward. Without that—without love respect and humility towards New Zealanders—these things are harder to achieve. 
I guess the other thing that is shown here is that when the right conditions are in place the iwi will step up to the plate. I also commend Te Arawa for stepping back albeit that in the end there was no choice given the Waitangi Tribunal findings and also actions in the High Court. But I do commend Te Arawa for stepping back to allow the Crown to go into the central North Island and negotiate the other claim—the central North Island claim—which could have been done only with Te Arawa stepping to one side and letting those interests be explored and also concluded. 
So as a member of the Te Arawa waka this is a proud day for me. I am very pleased to be here and to see this day come for the affiliate and for all of us. I wish those in the gallery well as they move forward. The hardest part is probably now as the affiliate goes forward because now it actually has the assets and it has the responsibility of making sure that those assets are well managed and that more than anything those assets accrue benefits for all the members of Te Arawa each and every one and especially our children and mokopuna. 
I wish Te Arawa well in their journey. We are there of course; we are all involved. I congratulate Te Arawa on their patience their forbearance and on staying with the kaupapa that has been pursued by tipuna before them. No doubt if they are looking down now they will have a big smile on their faces and rightly so and Te Arawa can have that as well. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
A tena koe kai te Kaihautu o te Whare nei. He paku noa iho taku tu me tautoko ake i nga korero kua korerohia i roto i te Whare i tenei ra e pa nei ki tenei pire a Te Arawa. Otira me mihi ake ki tera o nga kaumatua mai ra i te iwi o Te Roroa mai i te Tai Tokerau nana i tu i roto i te Whare inapo kia korerohia tana korero whakamutunga. No reira kai te rangatira Clem te Kaikorero Awhina o te Whare nei nau nei i korerohia to hitoria ki a tatau kia marama ai tatau katoa ko wai koe no hea koe he aha nga tuahuatanga e pa ana ki a koe? Otira ki to whanau me te iwi ra o tera wahi a Te Roroa. No reira tu whakaiti noa iho tenei ki mua i a koe tena koe tena koe tena koe.  
Huri atu ra ki a Te Arawa whanui tonu mihi tonu ra ki te Ariki Nui ki a koe e Tumu nau nei tatau i tautoko i nga ra kua taha ake nei. Nau tonu i arahi mai to iwi mai i Ngati Tuwharetoa kia tautokohia nga pire e rua ka tu ki roto i te Whare i tenei ra.  
Otira e te Kaihautu aroha mai kihai hoki au kia huri atu ki te reo o Tauiwi i tenei wa. Otira ko te hunga kua tatu mai i roto i te Whare nei a me ratau kua haere a-tawhiti mai kai te tino marama.  
No reira Te Arawa waka Te Arawa tangata tenei ra ta koutou mokai e tu whakaiti nei ki mua ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa i arahi mai ra koutou mai ra i tera o wa tatou rohe mai i Maketu ki te tonga mai i Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Tihirau. Ko tatau ano tera. No reira mihi ake ana ki a koutou mo te maro me te humarie o te kaupapa nei i arahi mai ra e koutou. Kua korerohia e te Minita mo nga Take Raupatu a Takuta Michael Cullen nga korero katoa e pa ana ki tenei o wa tatau kereme. I korerohia e ia te hitoria nga piki me nga heke i tau mai ki runga i o koutou pokohiwi nga taumaha kua taha ake nei. No reira me pehea ra te korero maku? Me pehea ra te korero maku kua oti katoa ra?  
No reira kei oku kaumatua e Anaru e Rangi taku tuakana e Eru me tera o to koutou kaiwhakawhiriwhiri kaiwhakahaere kaiarahi kaitohutohu kaipakanga a Rawiri kua whiti atu ki tawahi. Tenei ra te tautoko ake i nga mihi ki a ia mo tona humariatanga. Nana tatau i arahi i runga i te huarahi tika kia tutuki pai ai tenei kereme e pa nei ki a ngai tatau a Te Arawa. Mihi kau ana hoki au ki nga Minita na ratou i tautoko. Mihi kau ake ana ki te Minita Maori nana i ki mai ki a matau kia kaha ra. Ahakoa nga piki me nga heke kia kaha ra ki te kaupapa o tenei kereme. A me tenei ra mai ra i Te Tai Tokerau Ngai Takoto Te Aupouri me tona kaha ki te tohutohu ki te kohekeheke ranei koi na te kaupapa o tenei tangata e awhina nei i te kaupapa. Me te mihi ano ki ta koutou mema mai i Rotorua ko ia ra te Minita mo Te Atawhai o nga Ngahere kai raro i te Karauna a Steve Chadwick. Ko ia tetahi i tautoko. No reira piri katoa mai nga Minita i runga i te karanga o Te Arawa kia tautoko ake i te kereme kia tutuki pai ai.  
Ahakoa nga piki me nga heke o nga ra kei te heke mai tae atu ki te waru o Noema ko te mea nui kua tu mai tatau i roto i te Whare i runga i te kaupapa kua horahia nei. Me te mihi ano ki tena o tatau tuahine ahakoa tana korero he korero whai poti kai te pai kai te pai kai te pai. Tu ana ahau ki te tautoko i nga korero katoa kai roto i te Whare nei. Koia ra ano kihai tonu tenei ki te huri atu ki te reo o tauiwi e ki nei ko te reo tahae whenua kai te pai. Kei waenganui i a tatou te wairua o koro ma o kuia ma nga taonga nga korero nga whakatauki katoa i whakarere iho nei e ratou i te wa hei huarahi mo tatau. Na runga i tenei tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa.  
E te Kaihautu kihai hoki au e huri atu ki te whakamarama i nga korero kai te pai. Waiho ma tenei o nga rangatira e kaha ana ki te korero i te reo o Tauiwi e whakamarama. No reira na runga i tena tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker. I will be brief. I endorse the previous speakers in this House in relation to this bill of Te Arawa. I would like to acknowledge that elder from Te Roroa from the north who stood in the House last night to deliver his final speech. So to you the patrician Clem Deputy Speaker of this House last night you gave your farewell speech in which you gave us glimpses of your history and personal insights your family links and your tribe Te Roroa. So I humbly acknowledge you: greetings greetings and greetings to you. 
I turn to acknowledge the representatives of the broader Te Arawa confederation; and to the noble house of te Heuheu: your support Tumu was crucial in making progress. You led Ngati Tuwharetoa in support of the two bills passing through the House today. 
I plead your indulgence Madam Assistant Speaker: I will not speak English. I know that the people present including those who have come a distance understand clearly my words.  
To the ancestral canoe of Te Arawa to the people of Te Arawa I stand here your servant. You have left your lands that stretch from Maketu to Tongariro to attend to this matter. And to my other people of the territories that stretch from Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Tihirau I greet you and praise the strength and the dignity you have displayed. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Dr Michael Cullen has spoken comprehensively on this claim. He gave a comprehensive history of this claim and the burdens you have carried down through the years. What can I possibly add? It has all been said.  
To my elders Anaru and Rangi to my kin Eru and to your negotiator manager leader guide fighter Rawiri who is currently overseas I support previous statements attesting to his gentle demeanor. He led us on the right path to achieve completion of this claim for us the people of Te Arawa. I would like to thank the Ministers involved—the Minister of Maori Affairs who urged us to be steadfast in this claim no matter the trials and tribulations; and to this member from the north from Ngai Takoto and Te Aupouri who advised and chastised us to achieve more; and lest we forget your local Rotorua member of Parliament Steve Chadwick the Minister of Conservation who gave her support. It can be said the Ministers of the Crown came together in response to the call of Te Arawa to support the claim to its completion. 
Regardless of the ups and downs in the days to come including 8 November the main thing is we stood in this House to support the bill presented here. I acknowledge our sister; although her speech was merely chasing votes it is good. I support all the speeches here in the House. I will not speak English the language it is said of one who steals land.  
The spirits of the elders have come amongst us—their treasures their stories their sayings show the path to follow. So on that note greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tautokotia nga korero i korerotia atu a to tatau Takuta a Dr Cullen mo te ahua o te kereme nei. E mihi kau ana i a koe e Michael Georgina Mita me nga kanohi Maori i konei e whai atu a muri a te take nei. Tena koutou. I a koutou e Hori o Raukawa e mihi kau ana tena koe. E Bill i a koe me toku whanauanga kai te noho tata ake ano i a koe i a koutou o Ngati Manawa e mihi kau ana. E Rangi e Anaru e tautokotia ana nga whakaaro o Eru mo tera tangata e ki atu a te takuta nei kua rere haere ake ano ki Itaria. E mohio ake ano tatau. No reira e mihi kau ana ki a koutou katoa o Te Arawa. Me koutou e Matt mai i Tuhoe tena koutou. Tena koutou mo to koutou kaha ki te whakatu a muri a wenei. I a koutou hoki o Ngati Whakaue me a koe e Te Ariki Nui e Tumu. Tena koe. Tena koe mo to kaha mai i te hui tuatahi mo nga iwi katoa mo to kaha to ahua tu pakari pera i a ratou o Te Pumautanga. No reira tena tatau.  
He nui atu nga whakaaro mo te ahua o tenei pire. I tu kaha te ahua o te pakihi o te umanga me te pai o te oti penei tonu. No reira tena tatau. 
[ 
I support Dr Cullen’s comments regarding this bill. Congratulations Michael Georgina Mita and others who will follow me. Thank you. Greetings Hori of Ngati Raukawa and to you Bill and my kin sitting near you and all of Ngati Manawa. To you Rangi and Anaru I support the praise by Dr Cullen for the other leader who has gone to Italy for a holiday—congratulations Te Arawa. And congratulations to you Matt and Ngai Tuhoe on your work; and also to Ngati Whakaue. Mention must be made of Tumu te Heuheu. Thank you for your strength and persistence right from the first pan-tribal meeting—similarly Te Pumautanga. Thank you all.  
There is so much more that I could say about this bill. The business and commercial sides are sound; this matter has been completed satisfactorily. So greetings to us all 
.] 
Yesterday one was feeling an urgent need for tomorrow and we are here today in yesterday’s tomorrow. It is certainly a great time and a great day for Maori to celebrate. Along with Dr Cullen I recognise the greatness of the Maori leaders who have had the wherewithal to make sure that this has happened. They have decided and defined how to take this forward along with the Crown. I commend the leadership of Dr Cullen and I commend Mita Ririnui and Mr Jones for the effort they have put into it and all members of Parliament. 
Just to reiterate what Dr Cullen has said I say this is a great day for all New Zealanders. The fact that Maori have played a key role in it is something that we need to recognise and the fact that at times the off-line korero gets out into space is another issue. We are here today which will be all of the tomorrows as we go forward—the future for Maori. 
I recognise Te Ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu’s leadership not just his paramountcy but the leadership that is recognised by a whole lot of Pakeha in this country. He is as elaborate and successful as any corporate leader but being the rangatira that he is he is of course better in our Maori hearts and minds and I commend him for that. 
I recognise Wira Gardiner Matt te Pou and all of the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements from Treasury and from Te Puni Kokiri for the effort they have put in. And of course I recognise myself and everybody else from the Crown who has been involved. Nobody says that so I thought I would suggest it. I also recognise the rest of the Maori faces my friend Tau Henare and these ones over here—te Ropu Maori. I want to mihi to koutou e Rangi Anaru e Eru. 
You know it takes a lot of stomach—guts in the ground language—to step back to step aside so that people can step within to step forward and that is what has happened. This process has helped a whole lot of people to step forward and for that it will be etched in history. The great deeds done through the foresight of the leadership will be remembered by the mokopuna of all these great iwi. This leadership stands alone and stands alongside the better leadership in this country. For that I commend these people and I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora tatou. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As my colleague Georgina te Heuheu said National supports the third reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill and congratulates all those who have put so much work into it. I believe that above all this bill is evidence of statesmanship by the affiliate which has shown a huge willingness to compromise. As the Minister rightly said huge generosity of spirit was shown by the affiliate’s leaders throughout this entire process. That has resulted in this settlement and the central North Island settlement which we will consider shortly. I have always enjoyed my meetings with the leaders of Te Arawa. They are principled and they are patient especially in the face of delay and disappointment. To paraphrase what a former English judge said of himself—probably incorrectly—they have every Christian virtue except resignation; they have soldiered on very well. A third reading is not the place for reviewing the mistakes of the past. Now we must all move forward in a spirit of generosity. 
I do not think I need detain the House for very long in reporting to it what the Committee stage of the bill yielded. There were a number of amendments which I believe improve the bill. The first which should cause large numbers of the public to be more relaxed concerns public access. A number of clauses have been inserted to emphasise the fact that public access is to continue and public right-of-way easements will be granted. There are a couple of other minor changes in the first Supplementary Order Paper and another was tabled yesterday by the Minister to make a minor change to clause 12 dealing with the definition of affiliate historical claims. I agree with what he said in the Committee stage. Probably in legal terms the addition of new subclause (5) to deal with the issue of airspace over Rotorua airport and the neighbouring marae is unnecessary but for avoidance of doubt it is good to include it. 
I too like my colleague want to refer to the apology because I do not believe that the acknowledgments and the apology should be regarded as pro forma statements in the bill; I believe they are very important indeed. I particularly refer to clause 8(4) of the apology which emphasises the fact that the Crown seeks to atone for the wrongs that are referred to in the acknowledgments and looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation with the affiliate. It is one thing to acknowledge the failings of the past and it is another to atone for them but it is very important to work together to build a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation with the affiliate in the years to come. I say that because in my opinion there have been a number of Treaty settlements where the Crown has signed the deed the legislation has been passed and then sometimes the mistakes of previous times begin to be committed again because people have forgotten there is a new relationship and there is an obligation on the Crown to act according to the terms of the deed and the legislation. In this legislation there are many positive obligations on the Crown which it is obliged to carry out. 
So the emphasis is on atonement and I certainly hope that in the years to come as the deed is given effect to there will be proper notice made of what has been done in the past and the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. As my colleague said Treaty settlements require good faith on both sides. They require compromise patience and enthusiasm—what I would say is a kind of “We’re all in this together” kind of approach—and that has certainly been evidenced here. The last thing we need in Treaty settlements is arid legalism and obsession with process. I believe that that is why at times things have gone off the rails but I think we are probably on the right path again. 
I congratulate all those present on their achievements. I know that those in the gallery will forgive me if I single out one person my former partner at Bell Gully Roger Drummond with whom I have worked on Treaty matters in years gone by. I know how much he enjoyed working on this matter. It was not just another brief but a real opportunity to play a part in the future of this country. I congratulate him and his team on all they have done. 
National supports the third reading of this legislation. It is a great day for Te Arawa iwi and we certainly hope we shall have the opportunity to work with them in the future. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
A tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker a tena tatou o te Whare nei. Engari i mua i te haere tonu e hiahia ana au kia tautoko nga mihi i mihia atu ki a koe e te rangatira e Clem i muri mai i to korero mutunga inanahi. E hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki a koe mo to kaha ki te arahi i te Whare i te wa e noho ana koe ki runga i te Turu o te Whare nei. Na reira nga mihi. Ko te tumanako nga manaakitanga o Te Runga Rawa ki runga i a koe me to whanau hoki. Na reira tena koe.  
Na ka huri aku mihi e Madam Assistant Speaker ki enei o nga rangatira i tau mai i te hau kainga mai i nga waka e hia ranei engari ko te mea nui nga whanaunga. Na reira i runga i te ahuatanga o ena korero hiahia ana kia mohio mai tenei Whare ahakoa e hore kau i taka mai nga hua o tenei pire ki runga i a au mai i Ngati Hine engari e tika ana kia hakahuangia te whanaungatanga ki waenganui i a matou o Ngati Hine ki a ratou kua tae mai nei. Na reira koutou nga rangatira kua tai mai nei ka nui taku mihi na te mea na koutou i kawe atu tenei kaupapa kia tae pai ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare nei i te ra nei. Na reira ka nui taku mihi ki a koutou pau te kaha. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker and to us of this House. Before I continue I would like to endorse the acknowledgments made by other members to you Clem Simich the chief at your valedictory speech yesterday. I commend your work and leadership as Deputy Speaker of the House. May the blessings of the Almighty above be upon you and your family. 
Madam Assistant Speaker I turn now to greet the leaders present in the House; they represent many tribes but have come together in kinship. I would like the House to know although this Ngati Hine person will not receive benefits from this settlement it is right to proclaim the kinship ties between Ngati Hine and the tribes here. I applaud you the leaders; it was you who progressed this matter to this stage where the House is considering the bill today. I therefore admire you and your efforts greatly 
.] 
On behalf of New Zealand First I join with previous speakers to express our sentiments of welcome to our esteemed guests who have been responsible for bringing this bill to the stage we are debating today and who will be responsible for subsequent bills that we will be debating further on. 
I took the opportunity to acknowledge the Hon Clem Simich given that this is probably his second to last day here in the House and to acknowledge the work he has done in bringing order to the House whenever he has sat in the Chair you now occupy Madam Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge that not only because of his long service but also because of the fact that he is from Te Tai Tokerau and is affectionately known as a “gumdigger”—na reira e te whanaunga tena koe. But I digress. 
I stand in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill and I say that this is a very very important day not only for the affiliate hapu and iwi of Te Arawa but also for us as a nation. I feel privileged to be part of this debate and part of what will form the overall history of our country. This has been a long journey for the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu. It has come not without sacrifice and I think it is only right that we acknowledge Rawiri Te Whare and his team. I personally acknowledge all of those who have led the discussions and the negotiations that have allowed this bill to come before the House at this time. They have I believe exercised great patience. 
When we talk about settlements there is always the question of whether the settlement has been fair. I again quote the comments that Rawiri has often made during this whole process: “Is this a just settlement or is it just a settlement?”. We know that however hard we might try to ensure that there is a fair and just settlement circumstances are such that the claimants invariably make some sacrifice. But that sacrifice is made willingly in the final analysis. Initially and rightly so there was some objection but at the end of the day the claimants left the table knowing that they had represented their people to the best of their ability and that they had the task of taking back to their people what had been offered to them. They have done that. Quite clearly as a result of the support they have been given we are now discussing the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill in its third reading. 
Of course there will always be members of the iwi and the hapu who will have a different view. I think the good thing is that that is their right. Having expressed that contrary view it then becomes incumbent on the leadership of the hapu and the iwi to assure those who have expressed some disquiet about the settlement that what they have been able to receive is the best they could have received and more important to explain how the benefits of that settlement will filter down to the beneficiaries. If the leaders feel it has been a major task for them to get to this stage I would suggest to them that they have a greater task not only to ensure that the proceeds from the settlement are managed in a way that is beneficial to the hapu and the iwi but also to manage those proceeds so that beneficiaries are able to receive the benefits of this settlement. 
I understand that the chairman of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa is overseas. I suggest that the process of settlements is a little bit like politics. We know that when leaders of political parties disappear overseas and once the task has been achieved—or has not been achieved—when they come back they find themselves replaced. I hope that is not the case for Rawiri. But that is one of the tasks the current leaders will need to address and I know they will. That task is to ensure that the proceeds from the settlement are managed well and to the benefit of their beneficiaries that they are able to grow the settlement proceeds and that they are able to distribute them in due course to their beneficiaries. 
I conclude by saying that as for all good leaders it is advisable for leaders to look behind them from time to time to ensure that the people they purport to lead are still there. If they are not their leadership comes into question. I have no fear about the leaders’ awareness of the task that lies before them. It is one thing to get the quantum from the settlement; it is another to be able to manage it to best advantage for their people. 
Na reira e tatou ma koutou nga iwi nga hapu o Te Arawa ka nui nga mihi ki a koutou. Ahau nei na no Ngati Hine kei te totohe tonu matou i tenei ra tino kaha ana toku puhaehae ki a koutou. Engari e pai atu tena. Waihotia wena korero ki a au. Engari i tenei wa na koutou te ra na reira tena koutou tena koutou huri noa ki tenei o o tatou Whare kia ora mai ano tatou. 
[ 
So to all of us to you the people and subtribes of Te Arawa huge greetings to you. I in particular of Ngati Hine who are still disagreeing with each other today really envy you. But that is fine. What is happening among us remains with me. But at this point in time the day is yours so greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all throughout this of our buildings. Thank you 
.] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. On behalf of the Green Party I too welcome the representatives of Te Arawa who are here today in Parliament on this historic day. The Green Party like others before us acknowledges that the bill is a historic settlement bill and we are very pleased to support it. It is by far the biggest Treaty of Waitangi settlement with the Crown involving 170000 hectares of central North Island forest and is significantly bigger than previous large settlements including the Tainui settlement the Ngai Tahu settlement and the Sealord deal. Indeed some have referred to this as the “Treelords” deal and there are similarities. Its income is derived from harvesting rights in the first instance and although it does lay out a process for establishing mana whenua at some time in the future in the meantime ultimate ownership of whenua is left undetermined. 
The bill vests ownership of 86 percent of the central North Island Crown forest land and the accumulated rentals of $222 million held in trust by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust plus ongoing rentals in the Central North Island Iwi Collective. These funds will be divided up among iwi collective members according to a percentage formula and in addition Maori foresters will benefit from the emissions trading scheme. 
So it is a significant outcome with significant economic benefits for many Maori and according to the bill eventual ownership of the land will be determined on the basis of mana whenua in accordance with tikanga Maori. There is no dispute that negotiating this settlement is very very significant. We give our respect to the negotiating team such as Tumu Te Heuheu and others for their very long and tireless work in negotiating this settlement. 
The Green Party does however have a concern which has been alluded to by previous speakers that some small iwi and hapu can feel they are grist to the mill in a settlement process when there is a desire by the Government to negotiate a large settlement in a specific time frame. There are hapu and iwi for whom this bill constitutes a loss of land and mana and we are concerned that the Government’s Treaty process enables breaches to continue and that as a result no Treaty settlement is truly full and final or indeed can be felt by all to be truly just. 
Nevertheless the Green Party supports this bill. We acknowledge the enormous amount of work effort and determination it has taken on the part of iwi to bring it to this point. We congratulate those who have secured the settlement and we also acknowledge the significant concerns that continue to exist and cannot be denied. We will continue to advocate for a Treaty breach settlement process that is determined by Maori rather than the Crown and that is therefore inherently more just. We wish Te Arawa and all of those iwi and hapu involved in this settlement the very best of luck for the future and we acknowledge them on this historic day. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker kia ora tatau e te Whare tatou kua hui mai nei i tenei rangi hei tapiritanga korero. Taku i te tuatahi i mua o te timatanga mai o tenei korero kei te tautoko i nga mihi ki te mema o te nota e Clem. Ko koe tera i korero nei i kauhau nei i to korero inapo. He rawe tonu te whakarongo ake ki o korero e pa ana ki to noho i te Whare Paremata. Me mihi ki a koe me tuku i a koe ki te haere i runga i te huarahi i whakarite mai ai e koe mou. E nga iwi o te kainga kua tau mai ki te Whare Paremata i tenei rangi nau mai haere mai. Ehara i te mea e tika ana kia riro ma Te Arawa ano a Te Arawa e whakatau no reira me waiho nga whakatau ki nga kaikorero i tu i mua i a au. Me ki kua ea nga mihi ko taku he tautoko.  
Kei te mohio tonu au he rangi whakahirahira ano hoki tenei mo koutou katoa te hunga kua tau mai i te rangi nei. Me pera ka tika. Ka hoki nga mahara ki nga tau kua hipa ki te hunga kua ngaro. Na ratou tenei take i arahi i te wa i a ratou ara ko Manuhuia tera ko Whakahuihui tera ko Pinda tera ara noa atu ara noa atu.  
E koro ma e kui ma hoki wairua mai. Whakarongo ki te ia o te korero ki te matu o te korero me te tumanako ia kua watea koutou ki te ki kua ea. Kei te mohio tonu matou he ara tapokopoko he ara tikoki te ara i haerea ai e koutou. Penei i te ahuatanga i pa mai ki to tatou tupuna a Tamatekapua me ana mahi puremu i te haerenga mai ki Aotearoa nei kua heke ta koutou waka ki roto i te Korokoro o Te Parata engari pena ano i a ia kua puta te waka ki te whai ao ki te ao marama. Me ki kua u te waka ki uta. No reira me mihi ka tika.  
A tena ka patai au i te patai he aha te take kua tau mai koutou tatou ki konei i tenei wa. I haere mai tatou i hea? Ko tona tikanga he whakatika i te he te mahi. I hara te Karauna i kokirihia nga nawe ki mua i te aroaro o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi kia riro mana nga take e wananga kua ki mai pea te Karauna kua rahi me whakatau i te nawe. I whai koutou i tenei huarahi ka mutu nga korero i te rangi nei kua ea te take mo tenei wa. Engari kaore pea wetahi i te mohio mo nga uauatanga.  
Kua puta te nawe na nga mahi a te Karauna. He mahi whanako te mahi he mahi tinihanga te mahi. Ko te kooti a-ture nei tetahi o nga mea i te putake o nga raru. Ko etahi o koutou kua rongo i te ahuatanga o te Public Works Act. E pera ano hoki matou o Ngati Rangiwewehi. I ngaro te whenua i noho kore whenua te iwi. I te pera i Okere i Orakei Korako ka mutu ko te whenua tonu o Ngati Uenukukopako ara kei kora te taunga waka rererangi o Rotorua inaianei. Kei a matou o te Pati Maori tetahi pire hei whakatikatika i tenei mahi a ka korerohia tera i te hokinga mai ki te Paremata hou. Hei whakamarama ake kei te ki ake matou ko te whenua kua tangohia e te Karauna mo nga kura ranei mo nga rori ranei engari i te roanga o te wa kua huri te putake o te tuku ki take ke me whakahoki ki te iwi no ratou tera whenua me tetahi utunga me ki. Koi nei tetahi take nui nei ki a matou o te Pati Maori.  
Ko tenei mahi o te whakatau i te raru ranei i te nawe ranei ki taku titiro he mea hohonu nei ki a taua te Maori. Ko etahi ka whakapau i te kaha ka whakapau moni ka noho i te mokemoke ka noho i te rangirua ka noho i te riri. He aha ai? Ko taua kahui he mokai no te iwi he ringaringa mo te iwi. Ko etahi pea kaore e kore ka ruku ki te hohonutanga o te take ka tata toremi na runga i te whakapono he nawe kei konei me pakanga i te pakanga mo toku iwi te painga mo aku tamariki. Ki taku mohio kei te pera etahi o koutou kei te pera hoki etahi o tatou. He mahi uaua he mea whakapau kaha. Mo te hunga i pera rawa kia kitea mai i te rangi nei ka nui nga mihi. Ka kore e whakahua ingoa kei mahue ake i tetahi kei ki mai pea wetahi kei te mihi au ki a au ano. Waihotia nga mihi ki a tatou ano mo te kainga.  
Ara ano etahi take kaore ano kia tutuki noa hoi ano koi nei te korero o wetahi i te hui o te komiti whaiti i Rotorua. Tuatahi mo Ngati Whaoa. Kia mohio mai koutou kua tae mai tetahi tono a Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa kia tangohia o ratou ingoa i te pire. Na nga tikanga o te Whare nei kaore tera i whakaaetia. Engari ahakoa tera he take ka puta a tae noa ki te wa ka tau te rongomau. E aroha atu ana.  
Ka rua i tae mai te tono a Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao ki te ki he iwi tonu a Ngati Wahiao he whenua ano o ratou i te pirangi ratou kia tu motuhake engari kia tu ki te taha o Tuhourangi. I puta ano hoki tenei take i te hui a te komiti whaiti. Ko ta ratou ae he uri ratou katoa no Tuhourangi penei i a au o Ngati Rangiwewehi a Ngararanui a wai ake o te kainga engari ko Tuhourangi ano a Tuhourangi ko Ngati Wahiao ano a Ngati Wahiao. Ae kua moe tetahi ki tetahi ae kotahi tonu te kapa haka kotahi tonu te tu engari i te noho awangawanga ratou kei ngaro te mana motuhake o Ngati Wahiao a-iwi nei. Ehara naku enei korero engari koia nei te tono.  
I rongo a Rangipuawhe Maika i te korero nei a i tere tonu tana whakautu ki te patai a Tau Henare raua ko Pita Paraone. Ko tana ae kare he paku raru ki te ki Tuhourangi me Ngati Wahiao i roto i te pire nei. Mo matou o te komiti i te harikoa. Kaore matou i te pirangi ki te whakatau i nga take o nga iwi engari mo tenei take i te harikoa matou. I puta te tono i whakaaetia te tono e tetahi waha korero matua o Te Pakira o te tupuna nei o Wahiao katahi te mahi pai. No te wiki i muri tata mai i hoki mai te korero ki te komiti whaiti kaore etahi i whakaae. Ehara i te mea me waiho ake ma matou e whakatau kao engari he take tonu. Ko te tumanako ka ata tirohia tenei take a te wa. He take nui i te mea e hangai tonu ana taua take ki te pire ka tae mai a ko ake nei mo te Whakarewarewa me ki mo te puia.  
Na Ngati Uenukukopako te karanga ano ki a matou ki te tuku i tetahi tapiritanga ki te pire kia kore te pira e whakararu i ta ratou kereme mo te taiao i runga ake o te taunga waka rererangi. Na te Pati Maori tetahi i tuhi i whakarite engari i rongo te Minita mo te take nei a ka takaturia e ia he Pepa Whakatau Tapiri hei tiaki i tera huarahi ki a koutou Ngati Uenukukopako.  
Mo Ngati Tukiterangi. I rongo matou na te wareware na te hapa ranei kaore taua hapu i roto i te pire. Na te Minita ano tera i whakatika no reira ka pai wona taringa i rongo i te korero. No reira me whakanui ka tika. Ka hoki atu etahi panga whenua ki roto o nga ringa o te iwi. E ai ki taku rongo e rua tekau ma wha nga panga whenua ka hoki ki te iwi.  
Ko Te Whakarewarewa tera ko nga whenua o Rotongata tera o Rotoatua ano hoki. Me pera ka tika. Ara ano te patai he aha te roto mena karekau he wai o roto? Kei a koutou te tono tuatahi mo nga hua a te Karauna mena e hiahia ana a ia ki te hoko. Ka pai ano hoki tera. No reira mahia te mahi. Mahia te mahi mo te painga o nga kahui iwi kia taka nga painga ki te wahi e tika ana.  
E Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa no koutou tenei ra i te taha o wetahi atu o nga iwi kua tau mai i te rangi nei. Kei te aroha ake kaore toku rahinga i to koutou taha engari kei te pai. Kei te korero te Minita ki a Ngati Rangiwewehi ratou ko Tapuika ko Waitaha ko Ngati Makino. He ra tona pea ka tutuki pai nga take katoa mo tatou katoa o Te Arawa.  
Me pehea hoki a muri ake nei? Kei a koutou te tikanga. Kua ea te wahanga ki te Paremata kei a koutou inaianei. Hoea te waka kei aku rangatira. Ka hoki au ki raro i a Tiheia ki te mimi o Pekehaua ki reira whakatika ai i toku waka kia noho ano te niao o toku waka ki te taha o to koutou waka. Kei te pera ano hoki etahi atu iwi o tatou. Kia eke ki tera wa koia te whakatinanatanga o te korero whaititiri ki te rangi Te Arawa kei raro.  
He kupu whakamutunga kei te mihi ki nga Minita na koutou te take nei i akiaki i kokiri. Ki a koe te Minita Takuta Maikara Karana ki a koe Parekura Minita o nga Take Maori kia koutou to kahui ki a Mita raua ko Shane kare he mutunga mai o nga mihi ki a koutou i kaha nei ki te whaiwhai haere i tenei kaupapa ki tona mutunga. Kai aku rangatira ka nui te mihi ki a koutou tena koutou tena koutou huri noa i te Whare i tenei rangi tena koutou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker and to us all of the House gathered here today to add to the debate. The first thing before I begin this address is to endorse the accolades to the member of the north to you Clem and your valedictory address last evening. It was wonderful to listen to you as you went over your time in Parliament. I acknowledge you and wish you well in what you have planned to do. To the tribes from home who have arrived at Parliament today welcome. It is not appropriate that Te Arawa greets itself so I will leave the welcomes to those who have spoken before me. So I say the greetings have been dealt with and I am happy to support them. 
I know that this is a great day for you all the people who have arrived here today. And it is a great day. I reflect on the years that have gone by and those who have passed on. It was they who led the way in their time and I speak of Manuhuia Bennett of Whakahuihui Vercoe Pinda Pirika and others.  
Return all of you to this occasion. Listen to the debate and the depth of discussion and I hope you can all say it is now finished. We all recognise that this has not been an easy journey that you here today have travelled. Our ancestor Tamatekapua as we know when on the trip from Hawaiki committed adultery and descended into the whirlpool of Te Parata. Like him you were able to come out of the whirlpool to the world of light and continue on the journey. So it is appropriate that I acknowledge you.  
Now I want to ask what the matter is that brings us all here at this time. Where have we come from? In theory we are here to right a wrong. The Crown did wrong a case was taken to the Waitangi Tribunal to consider perhaps the Crown said: “Enough let us settle the grievance.” You followed this path discussion is now finished today and the issue is put to rest at this point. But many may not be aware of the difficulties.  
The grievance has come out of the deeds of the Crown. There have been theft and deceit. The courts of the land are one of the factors behind the grievances. Some of you may well have heard of the Public Works Act just as we of Ngati Rangiwewehi have. The land was lost; the people lived landless. It was like that at Okere at Orakei Korako even to the lands of Ngati Uenukukopako—that is where the current airport stands. We of the Maori Party have a bill to deal with this matter and it will be debated in the next Parliament. To explain we say that land taken by the Crown for schools or roads perhaps but that over time has been used for some other purpose should be returned to the people who lost the land with compensation. This is a high priority for us of the Maori Party.  
The matter of settling of claims has some significance to us as Maori. Some give their all use their own money experience loneliness and unsureness perhaps anger. Why? Because they are the servants of the people. Some perhaps dive so deep into the issues that they almost drown in the belief that if there is a grievance one should fight the fight for the betterment of our people of our children. As far as I know this is the case for some of you. It is difficult work; it is draining. For those in that category congratulations. I will not name individuals in case I leave some out and in case some accuse me of patting myself on the back. I will leave that for us when we get home. 
I need to say that there are some unsolved issues or at least this is what we were told at the select committee hearing in Rotorua. First in regard to Ngati Whaoa you need to know that a submission has arrived to us from Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa asking to have the name Ngati Whaoa removed from the bill. Because of the rules of the House these moves were ruled out of order. Despite that it is an issue that will continue until things are sorted out. 
Secondly a submission was received from Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao to say that they are in fact an iwi in their own right they have land and they wish to stand separate yet beside Tuhourangi. This issue was also raised at the select committee process. To them yes they are all descendants of Tuhourangi just like myself of Ngati Rangiwewehi like Ngararanui and others from home but Tuhourangi is Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao is Ngati Wahiao. Yes there has been intermarriage and yes there is one culture group they do stand as one but some are concerned that the rights and sovereignty of Ngati Wahiao will be lost. This is not what I said but it is in the submission.  
I heard Rangipuawhe Maika in his quick response to the question from Tau Henare and Pita Paraone. He said yes there is no problem with referring to Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao in this bill. Now we did not want to enter inter iwi issues but on this matter we were very happy. The request was made to uncouple it was agreed to by one of the senior speakers of Te Pakira marae and Wahiao the ancestral house and that was great. The week afterwards we received advice that some had not agreed. It is not as if we can settle this now but it is an issue. My hope is that this matter is dealt with shortly. This is an important matter because it affects a bill that will be presented shortly about Whakarewarewa.  
Ngati Uenukukopako also asked us to add an amendment to the bill to ensure the bill would not compromise their claim over the airspace above the airport. The Maori Party wrote an amendment but the Minister had heard about the matter and prepared a Supplementary Order Paper to protect your interests for you Ngati Uenukukopako. 
I move to Ngati Tukiterangi. We heard that through forgetfulness or just as a mistake this hapu was not in the bill. The Minister also fixed that so his ears are fine and he did hear the call. So it is appropriate that we celebrate. Land will be going back to the people.  
From what I understand 24 pieces of land will be returned from around Whakarewarewa to the lake beds of Rotongata and Rotoatua as well. That is appropriate. There is still the unanswered question: what is a lake without water? You have the first option on Crown assets if they choose to sell. That is great. So go for it. Do what you have to do for the betterment of the people.  
Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa this is your day along with other tribes. I am saddened that my tribe are not with you but that is fine because the Minister is talking with us along with Tapuika Waitaha and Ngati Makino. A day will come when all of us of Te Arawa will have our issues settled.  
So where to from here? That is up to you now. The part for Parliament is complete—it is on you from now. Paddle the canoe. I will return to Tiheia to the water left by Pekehaua to prepare our canoe so it can lie at the side of your canoe. Others are doing the same. When that day comes it will be the embodiment of the saying: when lightning strikes Te Arawa will be below.  
In conclusion I acknowledge the Ministers and the work you have done to move this matter and the negotiations along: the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Hon Parekura Horomia Minister of Maori Affairs as well as the Hon Mita Ririnui and the Hon Shane Jones. Your efforts to bring this matter to its conclusion are greatly appreciated. So to you my leaders greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all throughout the House today greetings 
.]  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand to speak in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. United Future supports and congratulates Te Arawa iwi and hapu for achieving this settlement. We wish them well as they chart a positive way forward better resourced to do so. We also support the relational aspects of the settlement which see the Crown acknowledge and apologise for taking too long to respond to the grievances acknowledge the failure to protect tribal structures and acknowledge the failure to protect the interests of the iwi and hapu when purchasing land. We also note the new gratefulness that sees the Crown acknowledge the generosity of Te Arawa in gifting land of scenic significance to the nation and their contribution and faithfulness as Treaty partners. Someone once explained to me that Maori back into the future mindful of lessons learned in the past. I think this bodes well for the handling of this settlement. We thank Te Arawa for their graciousness and patience and we acknowledge those who did not live long enough to see this day. We have great pleasure in supporting this bill’s third reading. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
Te mea tuatahi mihi au ki a koe e te kaumatua o te Whare nei Clem. Mihi kau atu au ki a koe me to whanau me o koutou korero i roto i te Whare nei inapo. 
[ 
The first thing for me is to acknowledge you Clem elder statesman of this House. Greetings to you and your family and for your words in the House last night. 
] 
Acknowledging Clem Simich and his speech in the House last night I am reminded of some  
Hansard 
 I read 80 years or rather from 80 years ago—I was going to say I read it 80 years ago but I am not that old. My great-grandfather stood in this House and referred to the Dalmatians as Austrians. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: They were at that time. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: They were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I acknowledge Clem for both his Dalmatian side and his Maori side. 
This settlement has been a long time coming. It has suffered a few speed wobbles on the way. If I look back at the first reading debate on this bill which happened on Tuesday 24 June 2008 I see that it is actually a very very short period between then and now. So I take this opportunity to congratulate members of the House and members of the Maori Affairs Committee which I think is the best select committee in the whole House. I congratulate my colleagues from all sides of the House. 
I want to mention very briefly the apology the issuing of protocols the vesting of certain properties and the provision for whenua rahui amongst other things that are in the bill. One would expect those things in a Treaty settlement bill would one not? Is it enough in terms of the quantum and in terms of the return of land taken mana taken and so on and so forth? Only time will tell. I am a believer that in this case as in other cases Te Arawa mana is intact and always has been. It has never been taken away from them as we are so wont to talk about in Treaty settlements. 
An issue arose out of the select committee which I want to respectfully impress on the affiliate and that is the coupling of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. Many people in this House over the past 24 hours have told me and the House that it may not be appropriate for Parliament to be the adjudicator in that. If that is right—and I am in no way questioning that—then maybe the next step for the affiliate and those who are not too keen on the settlement is to work towards some sort of agreement and future with each other rather than all the argy-bargy. 
Just before a third reading speech one is inundated with faxes and emails saying “Do this! Do that! Don’t do this! Don’t do that!”—all sorts of things. Although it is lovely to hear from so many people the third reading speech should be about celebration. It should be about how proud the iwi and I think the House should be. But there should also be recognition of what a sad day it is—the process over the last 150-odd years has got us to where we maybe should have been 150 years ago. As a city slicker as a born and bred second-generation Maori out of Otara— 
Hone Harawira 
: Hi ha! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Only another person from Otara would say that. So to my whanaunga my tuakana Hone Harawira I say kia ora. 
I ask that we city slickers are not forgotten. Let us not forget about those who may not be as knowledgable about where they come from. There are a whole lot of them living in Auckland and there are a whole lot of them living in Wellington. There are even people of Te Arawa descent living in Christchurch for goodness’ sake and in even in Dunedin—and all over the country. So please do not forget—I hate the words “urban Maori” because there is only one sort of Maori and that is Maori—those Maori who live in urban areas. Please do not forget them. 
Here is a little wiring diagram. I am sure the House is au fait with wiring diagrams as of the last couple of months—[ 
Interruption 
]—and I say to Ron that he will not win the Maori vote. First of all there is the Government. It takes a hell of a long time to screw out of the Government what is got out of the Government whether it be an apology whether it be money or whether it be the return of land. Then that goes down to the iwi reps and for a while the iwi reps are all happy because they have a cheque they have a title to some land and they have other things as well. So the reps are happy and they go off to their little trust boards and say: “Righto boys and girls what are we going to do about this? What are we doing to do with what we’ve got?”. 
The next step down on this diagram is the people: the mums and dads the aunties and uncles the brothers and sisters. It does not really matter where they are from or what sort of walks of life they come from; they will always whakapapa back to the iwi. I am reminded of a term that the Rt Hon Winston Peters used successfully 10 or 15 years ago. He talked about the trickle-down theory and about the fact that it was not working. There was a trickle down but it did not get down to the people it was supposed to get to. 
I implore those who are in front of us today on this happy occasion to make the trickle down work. I ask them to make it work for all those people who make up the bulk of the iwi. It is not the trust boards and the runanga who are the iwi; it is the people who are the iwi. So I ask that we make an effort to see whether we cannot get this trickle down into a bit of a flood for those people who really need it. I am not saying for a minute that iwi take the responsibility of Government in fixing up all the social ills the education ills and so on but I say that there are people out there in need of help in terms of the cultural paradigm so please help those people and particularly those people in the cities. 
I want to give a special mention to Dr Cullen—and coming from me that is pretty big. He has had the sort of passion that can get things moving. I said in my first reading speech that I could not say that about the others so I will not. But I say to Dr Cullen that it has been a pleasure to watch and be part of the process that he has involved himself in. Kia ora. 
Bill read a third time. 
Waiata; haka; karanga 
Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. Greetings to the Central North Island Iwi Collective. It is remarkable that today we have arrived at the third reading of this bill which embodies a historic journey and settlement. One of my favourite pieces of modern classical music is by American composer John Adams and it is called  
Short Ride in a Fast Machine 
. By Treaty standards this bill has been a short ride in a fast machine. On this journey I have acknowledged—as I do again today—the iwi of the collective who have done so much to make today a reality. I particularly acknowledge the leadership and the initiative of Te Ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu. His leadership in helping the Central North Island Iwi Collective to author an innovative response for settling the historical Treaty claims of the iwi in the collective of the central North Island forests land cannot be overestimated. 
I thank each of the iwi of the collective for their leadership their innovation and above all their noble desire to work together and breathe new life into their relationships with one another—new life that is conceived in goodwill and is a shared hope for the future. Therefore I honour each of the iwi in turn: Ngai Tuhoe Ngati Manawa Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Whakaue Ngati Whare Raukawa and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu. I stand firm in my conviction that their children and the generations that follow them will honour their work in this settlement and the bill that we are passing today. 
I also acknowledge the presence of representatives of Ngati Rangitihi who at the moment are not part of the collective but who I am told had a very fruitful and good meeting at the weekend. I am hopeful that Ngati Rangitihi will meet the Christmas deadline for being back within the collective and for being part of this settlement. 
This settlement has been a journey from disunity to unity. The recent journey of the collective iwi to settle the historic claims over the central North Island forests land has not always been a united one. Central North Island forests land constitutes an asset of significant cultural and commercial value to a variety of iwi—iwi however whose collective cultural historical and spiritual interests are complex fluid and overlapping. So the forests land is potentially a source of division amongst the iwi and indeed between the iwi and the Crown. 
Division amongst both the central North Island iwi themselves and the iwi and the Crown reached a low ebb through 2006 and 2007 over the proposed transfer of some of these lands to the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu. In 2006 the New Zealand Maori Council the Federation of Maori Authorities and others raised concerns about this redress through litigation in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In 2007 the Waitangi Tribunal held an urgent inquiry into the impacts of the Crown’s forests land settlement policy on the  
Te Arawa 
 waka and other central North Island iwi. But out of this disunity came unity. The Crown and the iwi of the collective heard the call of the Tribunal which recommended that the iwi create a forum that would enable these iwi to determine amongst themselves the principles and other guidelines that would help determine how the central North Island forests land should be allocated. 
The key initiative as I said was taken by Dr Tumu te Heuheu. Mark Burton was still the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations at the time. I remember having a discussion with Mark about what we should do in response to the initiative that Tumu was taking. I remember saying to Mark at the time that I thought we had about a 20 percent chance of success in achieving the goal but it was worth it despite the fact that there had previously been I think three failures to achieve such a collective approach. By March I upped that estimate to some 50 percent chance of success and here we are at the end of September with 100 percent chance of success and indeed 100 percent support in the House. 
All historical Treaty claims must be settled on the bedrocks of durability good faith finality and fairness. Such claims must also be settled with a clear end in view. A time will and must come when the Crown and Maori live as partners under the Treaty: not restoring a broken past but moving forward together into a healed future. It is for these reasons that the Government seeks to settle all historical Treaty claims by 2020. That target is realistic but very hard to meet. The current pace will need to be maintained over the next decade. 
The bill before us sets out a settlement that contains two elements that are vital to achieve this end. Each element is embodied in the unique way the collective and the Crown have found themselves playing their own roles. The collective as the claimant group has authored a proposed settlement which it has put before the Crown. The Crown has worked with the collective to develop its proposal by adopting a flexible approach in applying the Crown’s existing policy frameworks. Put differently the Crown has sought to achieve a settlement that although not wholly consistent with existing settlement processes remains fundamentally consistent with its key policy principles of durability good faith finality and fairness. This approach must continue in order for us to settle all such claims by 2020. 
The settlements have provided another lesson about the Treaty settlement process for the future. The Government has recently sought a regional approach to negotiations rather than a large natural grouping approach. That is proceeding in the far north—with again surprisingly high prospects of success which have increased only within the last couple of weeks or so—and of course at the top of the South Island. The Crown is seeking more and more where possible to negotiate with multiple groups in a common geographical area. This settlement shows that such a regional approach can work. 
This settlement will provide significant opportunities for the iwi and the collective. These opportunities have birthed a further opportunity for the Crown and the iwi of the collective to work together to develop those opportunities as Treaty partners in a healed and restored relationship. The development of those opportunities will in time give new economic and social independence to the people of the collective iwi—an economic and social independence denied to past generations that will not be denied to future ones. At its deepest level this settlement is therefore not about restoring mana whenua important as that is; it is about restoring the mana of the parties themselves to this settlement. To this end this settlement—as do all settlements—embodies and echoes the deep principles of tikanga. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata. 
[ 
What is the most important thing in the world? It is people it is people it is people 
.] 
I emphasise that this is a comprehensive settlement of the Crown forests land issue. It is not a comprehensive settlement of all the claims of the iwi within the collective. There is much still to be done in that regard but already out of this process have come other processes. As I indicated in the debate on the third reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill I expect to be able to announce soon the successful conclusion of agreements in principle with Ngati Makino and Waitaha. We are in the process of negotiations with Raukawa and Ngai Tuhoe. 
Today is a very important weigh station on our journey. This is a historic settlement and indeed I think it is the first time that we have done two settlements in one day in terms of the final stage of legislation. We shall move on to a third final settlement at the conclusion of this bill—the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill—and then on to two first readings of Treaty settlements. So this is an extraordinarily important day indeed. The rest of the journey for the iwi in the collective whose comprehensive claims have not yet been settled begins tomorrow. Thank you very much. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 A e aku koroua aku kuia e nga whaea e nga papa e nga tamariki mokopuna tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
So to my elders men and women aunties and uncles children grandchildren greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all. 
]  
I am very proud once again to be here in this House when such a unique settlement comes to pass. And of course I should raise the issue that my children and my grandchildren—hopefully one day—are likely to benefit from this settlement. But it is not that obviously that makes me proud. It is that the iwi of the central North Island have finally stepped up to the plate and that with great leadership shown on both sides—on the side of the Crown and of the iwi—we come to the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. 
It is a unique settlement and deserves to be recognised as such. It provides a platform for a new approach I think to other Treaty settlements that are iwi-based but may in some certain circumstances span several iwi and that is why the settlement is unique. It spans several iwi in the central North Island in this case. It brings them together over an interest that concerns them all and as Dr Cullen has rightly said it is limited in that respect to the assets under the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989 and in that the historical settlements of each of the iwi involved in the collective are still to be addressed—that is the next part of this big job that faces an incoming Government. 
I take on board the comments that Dr Cullen made about the momentum that has been generated on Treaty settlements in the last wee while. If both sides of the House are committed to an earlier settlement of all historical claims rather than a later one and although we have different dates in mind National certainly appreciates the fact that the momentum that has been generated must be picked up by an incoming Government after the next election. National members certainly give our undertaking that we will do that and we recognise clearly that something that takes so long for both the iwi and the Government to get to deserves to be kept moving at pace. We will certainly do that should we be privileged enough to take the reins of power after the election. 
This settlement addresses only claims that relate as I have said already to the Crown forest licensed land in the central North Island and had its genesis in the Crown Forest Assets Act. It brings together into one collective several iwi or tribes. They are Ngai Tuhoe Ngati Manawa Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Whakaue Ngati Whare Raukawa and the affiliate of Te Arawa—the House has just passed their claims settlement bill—and with the option for Ngati Rangitihi to be brought into the collective if that is desired by them and if it can be achieved. The option is certainly there; that is a unique aspect as well. The coming together into one collective is unique; an achievement not to be lightly passed over. Those of us who are involved in matters such as this know how difficult it is for iwi to come together even though there might be whakapapa relationships that span across all of them. This particular group of iwi have endeavoured to reach some kind of accord for some time—over a decade—so it is no mean feat that finally they have come to the table. They have managed to conclude a settlement and as I say with energy on both sides and commitment and a certain passion and real leadership that settlement has been achieved. 
This bill makes provision for the vesting of the central North Island Crown forest land and the transfer of accumulated rentals in that land to an iwi holding company and that company has a huge responsibility facing it. It will enable those assets to be allocated to the iwi named in the settlement in terms of the land claims. The bill sets out the principles and processes by which the allocation of the lands is to be achieved. That is also a unique development and that is set out in schedule 2. It is a tikanga-based resolution process for the central North Island forest lands which as I say is something new in regard to land and is also unique in that not only was the settlement proposed by the iwi but also this resolution process which basically calls upon the iwi themselves to take steps to share or allocate the land according to mana whenua generally speaking. The Government has no role in that and that is to be commended. Quite frankly no one outside of the iwi concerned will have a better appreciation of how land should be allocated other than the iwi itself. 
This legislation presents great opportunity but also great responsibility. We were in the Committee stage on this bill yesterday and some comments were made about the responsibility that will pass to the iwi in making sure that fair processes are employed and that fair outcomes are achieved and that there is a record of the proceedings that will progress the allocation of the lands. In the end we want to ensure that future generations will be satisfied that these things were done well they were done properly and that there will be no need for anybody to question in the future any of the outcomes. I commend this bill. It is a unique and absolutely wonderful development but as I say it will take great leadership to ensure that allocation proceeds on the basis that everyone will accept not just now but into the future. 
The other thing that is unique and I have mentioned it already is that the iwi themselves brought this proposal to the Government. My hope is that in other regions groups of iwi still to settle will see this bill as a basis that might be helpful for them. Indications from colleagues on the other side of the House and particularly from the Hon Mita Ririnui yesterday are that other regions other iwi are already looking to see whether they can come together in similar collectives to settle interests that are common to all of them. If that is the case if this bill has been a springboard for that kind of development in the Treaty settlements process then all the more reason why this claims settlement bill is so significant. For that alone I congratulate the iwi. Even though this is my family sitting in the gallery too often we do not give each other credit where credit is due and I want to do that now and do so now— 
Pita Paraone 
: That’s what true whanaungatanga is. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Thank you. It is a wonderful development and if we can keep the momentum going with those new initiatives then I can see very clearly that we can look at a day quite soon when historical grievances can be put behind us. 
This is a great day not just for the iwi of the central North Island but for New Zealanders. I am proud to be part of a country that has developed a process that genuinely addresses historical grievances of the indigenous peoples. Today the House will deal with five settlements bills so this is a very neat day particularly for Maori MPs in the House. It is a privilege to be here. It is a great day for the Parliament. It is a day when we can be assured that the honour not only of the iwi but also of the Crown is being restored. As I say I am very privileged to be part of that process. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
Ki a koutou i tae kaha i tae tahi i te ra nei e mihi kau ana. Ahakoa kua mihitia atu nga mihi e tika ake ano ki te mihi ake ano ki a koutou katoa. E Hori mo nga patopato o te wai o Raukawa e mihi kau ana. Kai a koe e te whanaunga e Hemi kai a koe Bill e mihi kau ana. Ki a koe toku whanaunga ahakoa e noho ake ano koe i roto i te maru o ratou Manawa kaua koe e wareware anake mo to whakapapa o Te Tai Rawhiti tena koe. E Anaru e Rangi e Eru koutou katoa nga kaiwhakahaere ahakoa kare i tae atu ki te Pihopa e mihi kau ana ki a koutou Henare tena koutou. Ki a koutou o Tuhoe e mihi kau ana ki a koutou katoa. Tena koutou. Na te pai hoki e kite ake ano koutou e tu kaha a muri a te take nei. No reira ki a koutou o Ngati Whakaue Ngati Whare e koutou e mihi kau ana. Ki a koe Te Ariki e Tumu tena koe. Tena koe mo to kaha e mahi whakawhitiwhiti a te tino take nei. Ki a koutou te hoa o Rangitihi kia kaha kia maia. E rekareka ana ki te rongo ki te korero o te Takuta nei a Michael mo to koutou nohotahi. Ahakoa nga piki nga heke e rite ake ano tera ki te mahi a tauiwi i a ratau ma. Engari kia kaha kei tae tahi ai tae noho pai ki te taha o wenei e korero atu mo te ahua o te rakau. No reira ki a koutou katoa tena koutou. 
[ 
To those who have travelled from afar to be here congratulations. Although the formalities have been completed it is right that I acknowledge you. Greetings Hori of Ngati Raukawa. To my kin Hemi and you Bill congratulations. Hemi you have lived many years with Ngati Manawa but do not forget you come from the East Coast. Commendations to the leaders Anaru Rangi Eru and Pihopa although he could not attend today. Greetings to you and your group Henare and to the people of Ngai Tuhoe. This bill will prove resilient and effective now and into the future. Congratulations to Ngati Whakaue and Ngati Whare. I extend acknowledgments to the leader Tumu te Heuheu for his strength in the development of this bill. To my friends of Ngati Rangitihi be strong be steadfast. It was good to hear Dr Cullen talking about your stance. Despite the trials and tribulations non-Maori are no different from us they have similar disagreements amongst themselves. Be strong. We hope in time you will stand side by side with others of the collective. So congratulations to you all. 
] 
I stand in support of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. The central North Island forestry settlement gives effect to huge steps forward for Maoridom as Dr Cullen has pointed out. Through his able leadership and through the great leadership sitting in the public gallery we have come to a better place for this nation. If we are serious about talking about nationhood then this surely is a great example for other people to watch to ponder over and to take cognisance of as to the way that we can get to a better place even where there are difficult ups and downs. 
I was very pleased to see that the bill passed its first reading with overwhelming support from the House and I say to the other Maori faces in Parliament and to all members of Parliament: “Thank you for the support.” It was also pleasing to see that the majority of the submitters to the Maori Affairs Committee were supportive of the bill. The bill provides for the transfer of approximately $200 million worth of forest land and over $200 million worth of accumulated rentals to the iwi of the central North Island. This is significant for two reasons. First the commercial assets will provide a solid base for the iwi involved to participate in real and sustained economic development in the same way that this Labour-led Government has led and sustained the economy. The fact that we still stand strong as the rest of the world is struggling is certainly testament to Dr Cullen’s ability to keep the books well-balanced and enables the nurturing of Maori to play a more positive and an active part in that economic development. 
Secondly the transfer of those assets has been key to settling the historical Treaty claims of the iwi involved. In giving iwi a platform to develop their economic assets this settlement will benefit the whole country. It is really really important to understand that a lot of these iwi do know how to manage their assets. They understand clearly the fundamentals of the macro and the micro and of the future opportunities that will be available to them in relation to the timber to be exported milled at home or whatever. Dr Cullen mentioned the weigh station. Well when the truck pulls up at the weigh station to weigh those Maori logs those Maori trees it will be a great thing to celebrate. Certainly today that is the reason why we are here—to celebrate the participation of the Central North Island Iwi Collective and its ownership. 
It is pleasing to see that Pakeha New Zealanders are generally supportive of this bill. The collective is to be praised for agreeing to preserve current public access. I remind the members who are here in the House of all the doom and gloom that was preached about what would happen when this great asset was passed over to Maori. The fear that was brought about by scurrilous gossip from other members— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Ha ha! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: —such as the one laughing over there was outrageous—outrageous! I say that it is certainly great and it is a privilege and an honour to sit amongst like minds who understand that Maori do know how to manage assets and that they want to create a succession plan that is real for the future generations who are about to come and take part in this development. 
Some of the submitters had concerns; the kaupapa was that they thought that the settlement would not happen. Dr Cullen with the support of the House has certainly brought us to a better place. In negotiating the central North Island settlement I was impressed with the spirit of generosity that iwi displayed towards each other. It is an example that other organisations whether they be Pakeha or other people could take a lesson from on how to get themselves sorted. There is a little bit that still needs to be sorted but it is encouraging to hear that a lot of effort was put in at the weekend. The central North Island collective leadership is to be commended. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Who wrote that speech? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: At times speechwriters leave out the true essence of what should be said. What has been created here is a sure partnership between a Crown-led initiative and the first people of this nation—the Maori people; the tangata whenua—and that is something to celebrate. This is a great day for Maoridom to celebrate. This is a great day for the nation to celebrate. This is about looking forward and about not looking over one’s shoulder because then the only thing that happens is that one gets a sore neck. 
A lot of these people have had sore hearts and sore minds but they will certainly leave this great bastion of politics and governance with a song in their hearts and they will be clear in their minds that they have done a deal. They have done a deal for future generations. They have done a deal that can be counted in this country’s history as being as good as whatever else has been done. Certainly as I drive through those trees down the Napier-Taupo road along the short cut through Reporoa I will look at those trees and think: “Kia ora trees! Kia ora Maori rakau what a great stand!”. I will be roaming through Maori tree country and that is a great privilege for any New Zealand citizen. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And you wish Ngati Porou had some forests like that. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I wish I had shares in those forests but I cannot whakapapa to these iwi! I say that these iwi need to be commended and the members need to be respected for the support that they have given to this settlement. 
I wish these iwi well like members do. This sure is a great example on the journey to our being serious about nationhood and not being glib about it and just doing other things. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 E nga iwi Ngai Tuhoe Ngati Manawa Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Whakaue Ngati Whare Raukawa e Te Arawa iwi hapu he mihi nunui ki te iwi whanui me nga rangatira e hui tahi nei tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa.  
[ 
To the people of Ngai Tuhoe Ngati Manawa Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Whakaue Ngati Whare Raukawa and the people and hapu of Te Arawa a huge greeting to you and leaders at large gathered here greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all 
.] 
I rise on behalf of the leader of the National Party John Key to recognise the significance of the passage of this Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill today. In my almost 18 years in politics I am continually surprised by the ability of New Zealanders to solve problems that other nations may find much more divisive and difficult. But here we have shown in this legislation a capacity to respond to our better lights both the Crown and iwi and to resolve what has been a very longstanding issue. I acknowledge the contributions along with those of others made by the central North Island collective and also by particularly Dr Cullen on behalf of the Government. A nation does these things when it is ready and Dr Cullen and no doubt the Prime Minister saw that we were ready for this settlement and took the appropriate steps. For that they should be commended because this opportunity could have slipped by the nation the iwi and the current Government. 
I also think we should acknowledge the shadows that are cast over this event. I do not mean that in a negative sense but we do stand in the shadow of people who some 15 years ago set off down the path of large Treaty settlements at a time when Maoridom was unsure whether the process could succeed and certainly when Pakeha New Zealanders were unsure whether it was something they even wanted to do. I think that we should acknowledge today those leaders who showed the courage that has lent momentum and also lent some courage to those who have brought this settlement together: Sir Tipene O’Regan and Ngai Tahu and Sir Robert Mahuta and Tainui who made what in retrospect were very brave decisions to settle for a great deal less than the size of their grievances. I acknowledge also the Crown led by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and Sir Douglas Graham for taking part in that process. We should remind ourselves that 15 years ago this path looked a great deal less certain a great deal rockier than it does today. Those leaders smoothed the path and today we are fortunate to be able to follow in their footsteps to such a positive outcome in respect of this legislation. 
The other point I want to make on behalf of the National Party is that we fully understand the momentum that has been built up. Dr Cullen referred to the other negotiations that are flowing out from these negotiations and our leader John Key and the National Party if we are elected to Government would certainly continue with those negotiations in the same spirit and I think with the degree of political commitment from the leadership that has been shown by the Labour Government in working so successfully on settlements in the last 12 months or so. 
The final point I want to make is this. I think of this as the end of the beginning. We have here people who have decided to lay the foundations for the future rather than to stand by and reflect only on the past. In that sense the destiny of 100000 people from the central North Island collective and the Crown are intertwined because our job now is to together ensure that the aspirational and material benefits of this settlement flow through to those 100000 people. Many of them of course will not benefit initially. Whether they can realise their expectations and aspirations as Maori and as New Zealand citizens will depend on whether they can get a decent education whether they can get a job that is fulfilling and whether they can get the health services they deserve when they need them. It is such a positive refreshment of that sense of mission to have settled these historical grievances and then for these iwi and the Crown to renew the commitment to ensure that the benefits that we all imagine can flow from this kind of settlement actually do flow through to every one of the 100000 people who are covered by the settlement. 
I finish by congratulating the iwi in particular. Family differences are among the most difficult issues to manage and the leadership of the central North Island iwi has shown to the rest of New Zealand admirable courage restraint and dignity in bringing this settlement together on the Maori side. I also acknowledge the contribution of all those who worked on behalf of the Crown—which is therefore the whole country—to seize a historic opportunity and see the settlement go through. Tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena ano koe Mr Assistant Speaker tena ano hoki koutou e hui tahi nei i waenganui i a tatou nga mema Paremata i haere mai ki te tautoko te kaupapa i mua i a tatou i tenei wa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to you collectively gathered here among the members of Parliament in support of the matter before us at present. 
] 
I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to express our support for the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill which a number of speakers before me have described as unique. People have talked about the unique terms of the way in which this settlement has been reached and I concur. 
But for me there is one other feature that is unique when comparing this settlement with other settlements. As other settlements have worked their way through the process of first reading select committee hearings second reading the Committee stage and then the third reading New Zealand First has been very consistent about one particular issue. The fact is that in all settlements prior to this one reference has been made to the fact that the settlement the apology has been given as a consequence of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. Herein lies the uniqueness of this settlement. There is no reference to the principles. There is no reference to breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
How often have we in New Zealand First been derided because of our consistency in questioning the undefined references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? How often have we been reminded of that by members of this House who said that settlements cannot be made unless reference is made to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? Yet here we are today all in support of this particular bill this particular settlement albeit without references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I will tell members why they are not referred to here. It is because the iwi themselves did not see any need for the inclusion of undefined references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I remind members of this House that we in New Zealand First do not want to be reminded by them of our stance in relation to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi again. 
We know and the respective iwi know that this is only a small hurdle a small bridge to cross in the whole process surrounding this settlement. They know that in future they will have to deal with the issue of mana whenua. During the select committee process we heard one or two submissions that queried the right of other iwi in terms of mana whenua. I think therein lies the challenge for the leadership of the respective iwi that this settlement refers to. 
Once again before I sit down I commend the leadership the representatives and the negotiators of the respective iwi that this bill applies to. I wish them all the best and I remind them as I always have with previous settlements that the leadership should always look behind itself from time to time to ensure that the people whom it purports to lead are still there. 
Na reira e koutou ma nga waka nga reo nga mana tenei te mihi atu ki a koutou ko te tumanako kia pai ta koutou haere kia hakatinana te kaupapa o tenei pire. Just by way of explanation I have wished the people of the respective iwi all the best for the future and I hope as they progress that it will be an easy path for them and for the benefit of their people. Na reira tena koutou kia ora mai ano tatou. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker ki a tatou kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Paremata i tenei ata. He kitenga kanohi ka hoki nga mahara ki te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Kai konei ratou a-wairua nei ko ta tatau ko te tuku i te roimata kia rere ka mutu waiho ratau kia moe. 
Ko tenei ra mo taua te hunga ora e nga iwi kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Paremata tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. E ki ana te korero mai i Maketu ki Tongariro mai i Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Tihirau kai aku rangatira tae atu ki a koutou Ngati Raukawa ko koutou ko tatou tenei kua u mai ki te Whare Paremata i tenei ata nau mai hoki mai. Nau mai hoki mai ki te kaupapa na tatau tonu i kokiri ki tenei rangi. Te ra ka whakamanahia te pire nei e tenei Paremata. Me mihi me whakanui i te ahuatanga o nga mahi nui kua oti nei i nga tau engari ka pataia te patai ko wai ka mohio i te timatanga o tenei tau ka eke nga wawata ki tenei taumata. He mea pai he mea whakanui tera ahuatanga kia kite mai ai te puawaitanga i tenei rangi. Koina pea te hua o te pukumahi o te heke o te werawera o te tautohetohe o te mahitahi o te aronga ngatahi o te korero o te wananga o te whakatau whakamutunga.  
Koinei te mihi whanui ki a tatau katoa koutou o te kainga o te takiwa o te Waiariki nga taha katoa o te Whare tena tatau katoa. E ai ki te korero koinei te whakataunga nui whakaharahara nei i waenganui i te Karauna me taua te Maori. Ki ta te pukapuka a  
Mana 
 he ahua orite tenei kirimana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Hoi ano tera korero tera. Kaore au i konei i te panuitanga tuatahi me ki na tetahi mate au i to ki wahi ke engari e ai ki ta etahi i haruru te whenua. I tenei rangi kai te harikoa te ngakau kai konei au mo tenei wa. He tika tonu te korero a te Minita a te Takuta Maikara Karana he tere tonu te waka nei engari kua u ki uta. E te Whare me mihi ra ki a koe.  
Kai taku Ariki e Tumu mo te ahuatanga ko tenei i arahi nei i tenei kaupapa. I puta tauna karanga kia eke nga iwi katoa ki runga i o marae o Ngati Tuwharetoa. I korerohia i wanangahia te take nei. Ae ranei me noho totara wahi rua ae ranei me noho i raro i te korowai kotahi. I puta te korero te whakatau me te pukumahi ana koinei tatau e hui nei i tenei rangi. Ka mihi ano hoki ki te Minita nana tonu tenei huarahi hou i whakarite nga Minita ranei kai te korero au ki te ahuatanga ki a koe te Takuta ki a koe e Mita ki a koutou katoa a Parekura a Shane e arahi nei i tenei kaupapa. He huarahi hou he ara hou engari ara noa ake ona painga. Ki taku titiro kua aro mai nga iwi Maori ki tenei huarahi na runga i te mea e hia ke nei nga kereme kua whakatakotohia ki roto i tenei Whare Paremata. Kua ahua toremi tenei Whare i te ahuatanga o nga kereme kua tau mai ki roto i a ia.  
Ko tetahi take nui e hoa ma i puta i te wa i noho nei te komiti whaiti ko tera e pa ana ki te mana korero o tena iwi o tena iwi. Ehara i te mea e tika ana ma matou tena e wetewete ana kua puta mai te korero a etahi atu o nga mema mo tenei take. Hoi ano e orite ana te whakaaro kaua e mutu te ahuatanga o te korero. Kaua e aukati te ahuatanga o te korero i te mea he wa tona ka ara ake nga nawe i roto i te ngakau o nga tamariki mokopuna pea. Ka hoki nga mahara ki te hui i tu ki roto o Waitetoko o roto Ngati Tuwharetoa i te tau pea kua hipa. I tera wa i te ahua awangawanga nga iwi ana mai i tera wa na nga mahi pai na te kaha o te korero ana kua puta te kotahitanga e korerohia ake nei. Ko te mea pai o roto i tenei whiriwhiringa e te Minita a kua puta te korero rangatira ki te rangatira. he tohu pai tera i te mea i nga tau kua hipa koinei tetahi o nga nawe kua puta kua tonoa me ki nga mea tuawha tuarima ranei ki mua i te aroaro o nga rangatira korero ai. Ko tenei huarahi i whakaritea mai ai katahi tona pai. Hoi ra he aha te kai o te rangatira he korero me mau tonu tatau ki tera ahuatanga.  
Me mihi ano hoki ki a koe Matiu korua ko Wira na korua ano hoki tenei kaupapa i whakatinana. Koinei au e ki nei ko te ara hou e korerohia ake nei ko korua tenei i rongo nei i te riri i rongo nei i te humarie i rongo nei i te ngakau mahaki i rongo nei i te ahuatanga o te hiahia o nga iwi kia anga whakamua nga take nei. Me mihi ra ki a korua ka tika. Ko te mea pai mo tenei momo ahuatanga e ai ki ta te nuinga kotahi tonu te korero na te iwi tonu i whakatau na te iwi tonu i tautohetohe nga take na te iwi tonu i whakariterite te huarahi whainga. Koinei te mihi atu ki a koutou o te kainga nga iwi o roto i te pire a me ki tenei kotahitanga i raro i te marumaru o Tumu te Heuheu.  
He kupu whakamutunga taku ki a koutou o Ngati Rangitihi i korerohia ta koutou take i roto i te Whare nei engari e tika ana te korero a te Minita kai a koutou i tenei wa. Kai a koutou te tikanga i tenei wa. No reira e te iwi e nga iwi kua tae mai i tenei ahiahi kia kaha kia maia nga ra kai mua i te aroaro kia eke tenei o nga waka nei ki uta kia eke panuku kia eke tangaroa. He wa tona kaore e kore ka eke mai ano ra nga wehewehenga i waenganui i a tatau engari i te rangi nei kua puta te korero a te Minita Maori me whakanui me ngahau ka tika. Ko taku ko ta matou o te Pati Maori he tautoko he tautoko he tautoko. Tena koutou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings Madam Assistant Speaker and to all present in our House. When we see faces the memories flood back of those who have passed on. Their spirits are present and we lament their loss. Rest in peace.  
This is a day for the living. Greetings to the tribes here in the House. To the people of Te Arawa Mataatua and Raukawa welcome back to the House of Parliament. Welcome back for this matter we have progressed to this stage on this day the bill passes into law. It is a time to celebrate the work done over the years. However the question must be asked: who would have thought at the beginning of this year we would make such progress? It is good and today we celebrate the fruits of the labour the sweat the debates the unity the single-minded focus and the discussions leading to final settlement. 
I acknowledge you all—those from home and the wider Bay of Plenty those from all sides of the House. I have heard it said that this is the largest settlement between the Crown and Maori.  
Mana 
 magazine likens this settlement to the Treaty of Waitangi. I leave it for others to comment on that. I was not here at the first reading due to a bereavement. According to reports the very ground shook. Today my heart is glad I am here to witness this. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen was correct when he said that this has been a swift process; however the canoe has made land. I acknowledge the House.  
I acknowledge the paramount chief Tumu for your leadership. You called other tribes to meet in your Ngati Tuwharetoa domain where this matter was discussed and a decision made over whether to work independently or as a collective. The decision was made to work together; that is why we are here today. I congratulate the Minister who led this new approach; indeed congratulations to the Ministers the Hon Dr Michael Cullen the Hon Mita Ririnui the Hon Parekura Horomia and the Hon Shane Jones. This is a new approach with many benefits. Tribes have supported this new path; witness the many settlements that have come through the House recently. The House has been inundated with the number of legislative settlements.  
A major point of debate in the select committee was the question of the mandate of each iwi.  
It is not appropriate for us MPs to make the decisions; another member has spoken on this issue. The common theme is that discussions do not stop. Do not obstruct the free flow of discussion; if that occurs grievances will in time come forth in the coming generations. I recall the hui at Waitetoko in Ngati Tuwharetoa last year when some tribes voiced their concerns. Since then because of discussions unity has prevailed. The positive aspect of this new path set by the Minister is that the discussions are between people of high standing. This has been a sore point in the past; minor officials have been sent to discuss important matters with tribal leaders. So this is a positive change. Lest we forget the food of chiefs is discourse.  
I commend the efforts of Matiu Te Pou and Wira Gardiner whose efforts made this possible; I refer here to the new path spoken of earlier. You felt the ire as well as the goodwill and glad hearts of the people and the desire of the tribes to progress matters. I commend you. People say the advantage of this path is that the process is clear; there is but one statement endorsed by the tribe; the proposed details of the settlement are debated and the people decide what path to follow. For this I commend the home people and the tribes concerned under the shelter of Tumu te Heuheu.  
A final word to Ngati Rangitihi. Your issues were discussed by the House but the Minister is correct it is over to you now to make a decision. So to all the tribes here this afternoon be strong be steadfast that this canoe makes landfall. The time will come when differences separate us but today the Minister of Maori Affairs has said we should celebrate and be happy. I and the Maori Party are in support. Thank you. 
] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to support and celebrate the passage of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. This bill now takes the record for being the largest settlement to date so congratulations are due to both the Crown and iwi who have done a remarkable job in pulling this together. We applaud the wisdom of collective strength that has secured this outcome and we are very pleased to see that legislatively the door has been kept ajar for those who were unable at this stage to determine whether this was the best outcome for them. Obviously there is an encouragement for them to reconsider their position. 
We are pleased to see that the intention of this bill includes the status quo to remain regarding public access to central North Island forests land. It is interesting that today we will probably be debating the third reading of the Walking Access Bill which has a relationship to this as well. 
The Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill will see the forest land cease to be Crown forest land and vests in CNI Iwi Holdings Ltd the new company that was previously owned by the Crown. 
We note there were 66 information or endorsement hui and that the allocation model incorporated in the bill was the result of unanimous agreement. This has been extremely well negotiated and it is a fantastic outcome. We are very happy to support this bill. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Can I too in opening offer my congratulations and best wishes to the iwi of the central North Island collective to Tumu te Heuheu for the outstanding work that he has done and to the work of Wira Gardiner as Crown facilitator. I offer my congratulations to the Minister and his team on the contribution they have made. As other National members have said we support the third reading of this important legislation. My colleague Mrs te Heuheu summarised the bill in the course of her speech and I am not going to repeat that material here. Mr English reaffirmed the National Party’s commitment to this important work which was started by the Bolger Government in the 1990s and so ably assisted by Sir Tipene O’Regan and Sir Robert Mahuta. 
A number of features of this bill are particularly interesting but none more so than Subpart 2 of Part 1 which deals with allocation principles. I am particularly interested in schedule 2 which I sincerely believe and hope will provide a very useful model for the future because I have seen far too much litigation in the Treaty settlements area over the years. I go back to the fisheries litigation that started almost immediately after the 1992 settlement. It went on for about a decade. It consumed resources. It went to the Privy Council on a number of occasions and was resolved only a couple of years ago. I had grave fears that this particular issue was on the verge of going down that path and I am just so pleased that it has not and that today we are all supporting the third reading of this bill. 
That is why schedule 2 is so very important because it sets out a very tight timetable and has a number of particularly interesting features. As I said I believe it could well be a model for future dispute resolution: keeping people away from courts and enabling them to resolve disputes on allocation on the basis set out in this bill. I strongly support measures where iwi acknowledge their commitment to a resolution process that for example promotes the mana and integrity of iwi and recognises the desirability of post-settlement collaboration. 
There is no doubt that the timetable set out in schedule 2 is very tight indeed because the parties have to identify their mana whenua interests by 1 October 2009. That particular process is to start on 1 July 2009 then there is to be negotiation through to June 2010 and hopefully the allocation agreement will be finalised by 30 June 2011. Very detailed processes set out that in the event of negotiation failing to achieve a result there will be a mediation. If that does not work there will be an adjudication. 
It may seem strange coming from one of the National Party’s justice team but I really believe it is important that lawyers are not entitled to be present or be heard unless all parties agree. Frankly I think that that is a welcome development in this area because I often think that lawyers in litigation can be a cause of discord. I am delighted that lawyers will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses because I do not think that helps these sorts of issues at all. I have seen attempts at cross-examination in the Waitangi Tribunal and inevitably it is a process that although well suited to High Court litigation is not suited to this sort of exercise. I for one heartily endorse what is set out in schedule 2 and I will be keeping a very close eye on it because I believe it will work extremely well. As I said litigation is expensive it is time consuming it is draining and there is so much truth in the old saying that it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation. 
I congratulate all iwi here today on this settlement. This was one that was inspired by iwi driven by iwi and achieved by iwi. May other iwi in other parts of the country look at this development and adapt it to their needs as they seek to resolve their grievances with the Crown over the next few years. As Mr English said the National Party will actively support any and every endeavour to resolve these differences because there is no task more important to the future of our country than this one. I congratulate all concerned. I think this is a great day for New Zealand and I am proud to be a member of Parliament able to speak on the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I say “well done” to the central North Island collective. This settlement process is absolutely unique to Maori. I want to echo Bill English who said that we may have our differences and there may be differences along the road but—in my eloquent way of putting what Bill English said into the words of South Auckland—“At least we don’t go around blowing each other up.” That has to be a good thing—it is certainly a good thing for those who might be blown up. The uniqueness is that the settlement process belonged to Maori and as colleagues in this House have said maybe we are looking at a model that will stand us in good stead for the future—who knows? 
I have one concern but that concern is not particularly for the central North Island collective; it is for future Governments whoever they may be. The concern is that the settlement process has taken us back to a time prior to the individualisation of Maori land. That is not the concern of the central North Island collective; its concern was to settle the package and it has done that. My concern is specifically for those who out of the native land process the Native Land Court and the Maori Land Court process have parcels of land—or think they might have—and that maybe their rights have somehow been taken away. I think we need to start looking at that in the future; as I said it is not a big concern of the central North Island collective. 
I will be brief at least in my response to the speech of the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia. I recognised in the speech of the Minister and in his voice that there might be an election on the horizon. He talked about scurrilous rumours and rumour-mongering and said this was a great day and a beautiful day—well it is outside. But I wonder whether I am letting him off the hook in terms of Labour members seeing this as an opportunity to pat themselves on the back because in 7 weeks’ time we will be going to the polls. I suppose if I were in Labour’s position I would be doing the same thing. So I congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs but I tell him not to overwork it. He should pat himself on the back but he should not overwork it. 
I am concerned in this respect: we are in urgency at the end of a parliamentary session. In fact we are at the end of the 48th Parliament and we are trying to nut out these bills and rush through these third readings. It would have been all right if there were one or two bills—I could handle that—but if we look at the Order Paper we see that we are working our way through a number of issues. So although I congratulate the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for his erstwhile work we should not have let it come to being part of an urgency motion. 
I finish by mentioning the Treaty of Waitangi and the Treaty principles as my tuakana from New Zealand First has mentioned. He mentioned that there were no Treaty principles in the bill but I say that they do not have to be in the bill or even in settlements to be there. 
Pita Paraone 
: That’s what I’ve been saying. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well actually the member did not really say it in that way. I do not want to get into a big argument with New Zealand First; suffice it to say that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are worked out over time—they are worked out through the law courts they are worked out through bills in Parliament and they are worked out through how we live. Maybe one day we will all be getting around on our little mobility scooters thinking that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are what make this country tick. I think it is wrong to say that the reason they are not in there is that iwi did not want them in there. We all in one way or another take the Treaty principles to heart and we operate with them on a daily basis. 
No reira e te Whare e te Kaihautu o te Whare kei a koutou e aku rangatira tena koutou a tena koutou kia ora mai tatou katoa. 
[ 
So to the House the Assistant Speaker of the House and to you my chiefs greetings to you greetings to you and to all of us 
.]  
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
Tena ano koe kai te Kaihautu te ahua nei kei a au te korero whakamutunga mo tenei kaupapa kai waenganui i a tatau. He paku korero noa iho taku i tenei wa. A kua korerohia nga korero mai i tena ropu i tena ropu i tena ropu a me tenei Kawanatanga i te ahuatanga o tenei pire e pa nei ki te ngahere o te tuawhenua. No reira tu tonu nga mihi ki nga matawaka kua tatu mai a te arikinui e Tumu me nga karangaranga hapu kei waenganui i a tatou i tenei ra Te Arawa Mataatua Tainui tenei ra te mihi atu ki a koutou tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. A te wa ka mihi ano au ki enei o oku whanaunga hara mai ra i Te Tai Tokerau.  
No reira e te Kaihautu me pehea rawa nga korero maku. Otira taku he tu ki te tautoko i nga mihi me nga kupu o taku hoa rangatira te Minita Maori a Parekura Horomia te tino Honore. Nana i tu ake ki te mihi ki te tautoko i a ratou katoa i arahi mai ra i te kaupapa mo tenei pire mai ra i te hau kainga a tatu iho nei ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara ki te Whare Paremata a ki te Ana o nga Raiona. No reira na runga i tena me ki ra kua oti katoa ra nga korero kua oti katoa. Kore e tu tenei ki te whakahe ki tena ki tena ki tena e tu ana ki te whakamihi atu ki nga whakaaro katoa kua whakaatuhia i tenei ra. No reira kua mihingia nga mihi ki nga Minita o mua ki tena Pirimia nana i arahi nga kereme o Ngai Tahu me Tainui i tona wa a nga Minita katoa i raro i a ia. No reira tautoko i nga mihi ki a ratou.  
Otira hoki noa atu taku mihi ki tena o wa tatau Minita Maori rangatira mai ra i Ngapuhi i a Matiu Rata. I te tau 1975 nana te kaupapa i whakato i roto i te Whare nei na ka puta taua pire hei whakawhiriwhirihia i nga kereme raupatu whenua. Nana ano i whakatu i tena Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Me ki ra te korero nana te kaupapa i timata. Ki te kore taua ture e kore tatou i huihui ai i tenei ra.  
Me te mihi ano ki te Minita mai ra i a Tainui i a Maniapoto a ko Koro Wetere te Honore. Nana i whakawhanuihia i te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi i ahei ratou ki te hoki whakamuri ki te tau 1840 koi ra te timatanga o nga mahi tukino a te Karauna ki a ngai tatau huri noa te motu. No reira tika ana kia mihingia atu nga Minita o mua engari kaua tatau e wareware na wai i timata he aha hoki te kaupapa i timatahia ai?  
No reira na runga i tena huri atu au ki nga matawaka. Na ratau tonu te kaupapa o tenei ra e tika ana kia mihingia atu ratau. No reira me penei ra te ki waiho tena nga korero i ana korero me era me era me era. Taku kei te mihi atu ki te whakaiti i mua ki a koutou no reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa.  
E te Kaihautu he inoi taku nei ki a koe waiho taku korero kia ahua mana tonu. Kaua e huri atu ki tera reo kia ahua rite tonu ki te remana. Ka ahua kawa hoki. No reira na runga i tena kia tau te rangimarie ki a koe e te Kaihautu. Tena koe huri noa kia ora tatau katoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to you Madam Assistant Speaker. It appears that I have the last word in this matter. I will be brief. We have heard from each of the collectives involved and this Government in respect of this bill and matters relating to the central North Island forests land. I restate the acknowledgments to the iwi collectives present here to the paramount chief Tumu and the many hapu from Te Arawa Mataatua and Tainui. At the appropriate time I will acknowledge my kin who have come from North Auckland. 
So what can I add? I stand to support the acknowledgments of the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia. He endorsed all you who have led the work that brings this legislation to Parliament here in Wellington to the lion’s den. We can say that all that needed to be spoken has been spoken. I agree with all that has been said today. Acknowledgments have been made to Ministers past and present and to the Prime Minister who settled the claims of Ngai Tahu and Tainui and I support those acknowledgments. 
I also acknowledge the former Minister of Maori Affairs from Ngapuhi Matiu Rata.  
In 1975 he began this process through the House that established the Waitangi Tribunal. He was the instigator of all this. Had it not been for his efforts we would not be here today. 
I acknowledge the former Minister from Tainui and Ngati Maniapoto the Hon Koro Wetere. He extended the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal allowing it to look into claims from 1840 the year when the attacks of the Crown against us in these isles commenced. So it is right to acknowledge past Ministers but we must never forget who started it and why it was started.  
Because of that I turn to the different iwi collectives before us. This matter belongs to them; it is appropriate that we acknowledge them. So the accolades must be accorded to each of them. Let each relate its own story. My part is merely to stand in humility to acknowledge and congratulate you. Greetings to you all.  
Madam Assistant Speaker I seek that my address not be interpreted so that its tenor and flavour is not lost and does not become distasteful like a lemon. So let peace and good tidings prevail upon you Madam Assistant Speaker. My thanks to you and to all of us throughout. 
]  
Bill read a third time. 
Waiata; karanga 
Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. I acknowledge the people of Te Roroa who have now arrived in the galleries. I welcome those who have travelled from Northland to be here today to listen to this third reading of their claims settlement bill. I acknowledge them and all of those from Te Roroa who have worked so hard to make this day possible. I acknowledge the many Te Roroa kuia and kaumatua who are no longer with us but who provided leadership and inspiration to Te Roroa’s negotiators and to the Te Roroa people. 
I am told that Te Roroa means “the tall ones”. Te Roroa take their name from Manumanu the tupuna who was killed in battle. He was so brave that his enemies exclaimed “Behold! That man is as tall as a white pine.” Te Roroa are indeed the tall ones; they have stood tall throughout their dealings with the Crown. They have conducted themselves with honour and dignity in even the most difficult of times. 
This bill settles the Treaty grievances of Te Roroa. The Crown formally acknowledges its breaches of the Treaty offers an apology to Te Roroa and provides cultural financial and commercial redress. The bill therefore marks a historic point in time in the Crown - Te Roroa relationship. The people of Te Roroa have waited a long time for today. They have been seeking redress for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty since at least 1861. In the 1980s they took their claim to the tribunal and I acknowledge the efforts of all those of Te Roroa who went before the tribunal—in particular Ned Nathan and Emily Paniora two of the original Wai 38 claimants who are no longer with us. 
Te Roroa were one of the first groups to come into Treaty settlement negotiations. It is 16 years since the Waitangi Tribunal released the Te Roroa report in 1992 and 15 years since negotiations commenced. In 2004 after 12 years the Crown and Te Roroa signed an agreement in principle and in December 2005 Te Roroa and the Crown signed the deed of settlement. In late 2005 the Te Roroa people also ratified the governance entity Te Roroa Manawhenua Trust to receive and manage the majority of the assets. The trust was established in August 2006. A second trust has also been established Te Roroa Whatu Ora Trust which has a commercial focus and will receive and administer the commercial redress properties. The passage of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill is the final step that will enable the Crown to provide settlement redress to Te Roroa. 
In this bill the Crown acknowledges it breached the Treaty in respect of Te Roroa. The breaches relate to the cession of land at Te Kopuru in 1842 Crown land purchases from 1876 and the operation and impact of the native land laws. These breaches have left Te Roroa virtually landless. In this settlement the Crown also acknowledges that the separation of Te Roroa people from their wahi tapu and taonga has been a source of great spiritual and emotional pain for Te Roroa. The Crown unreservedly apologises for these breaches of the Treaty. 
The settlement also includes financial and commercial redress worth some $9.5 million. Te Roroa has decided to use this redress to purchase 15 Crown-owned properties. These properties include over 3000 hectares of commercial forest and over 2000 hectares of farmland and other properties. These provide a platform for Te Roroa to pursue its economic aspirations. 
A key component of Treaty settlements is cultural redress. The settlement bill provides for the gifting by the Crown of 24 sites of cultural significance comprising an area of over 2000 hectares. Not only is this the largest cultural redress vesting in any settlement since the Ngai Tahu settlement but it also includes the return of two of the reserves recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal’s 1992 report Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki. 
The Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill also includes redress designed to strengthen the relationship between the Crown and Te Roroa. It enables Te Roroa to have increased input into the protection of Waipoua Forest home to the mighty Tane Mahuta New Zealand’s largest kauri tree. Also underpinning this new relationship are protocols between Te Roroa and Government departments. 
This settlement does not and cannot fully compensate Te Roroa for the losses it has suffered either in economic or in cultural terms. No Treaty settlement is able to do that. Many of Te Roroa’s losses relate to wahi tapu and taonga no longer held by its people. In fact I have heard the Te Roroa claim described as a wahi tapu claim reflecting the number of significant cultural and archaeological sites across the rohe. The full force of this grief in respect of particular wahi tapu became clear during the select committee hearings. The people of Te Roroa talked about Kaharau which could not be returned through the settlement as it is currently in private ownership and the Kohekohe taonga which are held by the Auckland Museum. The trustees of the Te Roroa governance entity also spoke of the financial difficulty facing Te Roroa in acquiring properties available for purchase under the right of deferred selection provided for in the settlement. 
The Government has taken steps working with Te Roroa and other political parties to find solutions to these issues that benefit everyone’s interests. These proposals were largely outside the Treaty settlement process and have not required any amendment to this bill. I am confident that these measures will further strengthen the durability of the settlement. Its enactment is a historic milestone. It is also an important step in the country’s progress towards settling all historical claims and is the third settlement to reach the final stage of legislation today. 
Many people contributed to this settlement over the years. I acknowledge the contribution made by the first Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to enter into these discussions during the early stages of negotiations Sir Doug Graham; Margaret Wilson who renewed negotiations when they had stalled; Mark Burton who negotiated and signed the deed of settlement on behalf of the Crown; the Minister of Maori Affairs who continues to bully me along into these settlements; the Minister of Conservation; the Minister for Land Information; and the Associate Minister of Finance. I also acknowledge the valuable support of my Associate Ministers Mita Ririnui and Shane Jones—who has taken a particular and close interest in this particular settlement—and the work of many Government departments that have been involved. 
The heart of the Te Roroa rohe is the Waipoua Forest home of the kauri tree. My hope for Te Roroa is that this settlement is like a kauri seedling starting small and growing perhaps slowly but in the years to come growing into a tall and mighty tree and providing a canopy of shelter for those around it. I am certain that with the benefit of Te Roroa’s leadership and the revitalisation of its mana and identity future generations in Northland and throughout New Zealand will receive a strong and enduring legacy from this settlement. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker may I begin my third reading speech on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill by wishing you all the best. I was very interested in all of your speech last night but particularly in the part about your youth spent growing up in this area the rohe of Te Roroa. I thank you for your friendship and guidance over the years and I wish you all the best. 
National will support the third reading of this bill which has had a somewhat difficult legislative history. It was introduced on 14 February 2007 and had its first reading on 1 March 2007. The Maori Affairs Committee hearing was held in Dargaville shortly before Easter last year. The bill was reported back in May 2007 had its second reading on 20 June 2007 and thereafter it languished for quite some time before the Committee stage was completed a few days ago. Now we are at the third reading. 
The select committee hearings in Dargaville will stay with me for some time. Many of the members who sat on the select committee were a little uneasy after the hearing and thought that something was not quite right. We expressed our concerns but we are now satisfied that our concerns have been addressed as a result of movement over the last little period. That movement which was referred to by the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations involves components that do not form part of the Treaty settlement and do not necessitate an amendment to the bill. We are now aware of those components and happy with them. The acceptance by Te Roroa has meant the Committee stage and third reading of the bill can now proceed. We were not consulted on these matters. We have had to make our own inquiries and that is all part of the game I suppose. It would have been helpful to be consulted especially as we take the view that Treaty settlements should not be a matter of partisan discord. But having made those inquiries and heard what the Associate Minister told us in the Committee stage we believe it is right and proper to support the third reading of this bill. 
We know that some residual differences may remain. To ignore them would be naive but it is my earnest hope that those differences will now disappear and that before long the good people of Te Roroa will move forward as one. I strongly believe it is in the interests of Te Roroa that this bill now proceeds to a third reading. 
These settlement bills and tribunal reports always make very interesting reading and the preamble to this bill tells a very very sad story. The Minister referred to the fact that the claim to the Waitangi Tribunal was Wai 38. I recall because it is etched in my brain that Wai 27 was the Ngai Tahu claim and that was settled a decade ago. This one as the Minister said was reported on in May 1992 and it has been around for a long time. It was a very early claim. The tribunal’s report was quite devastating. As the Minister said there has now been a great deal of negotiation on the claim involving the previous National Government and particularly Sir Douglas Graham and the three Ministers in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in this Government. The National Party endorses what the Minister said and says the time has come for this iwi to have the fruits of its settlement and move on. We believe this is a good settlement and it is in the interests of the iwi that the third reading if this bill takes place. 
I offer my congratulations to all those in Te Roroa who have fought the good fight over so many years. The Minister has referred to some of them and I join with him in congratulating them and also their advisers on the good work that has been done to bring this bill to the third reading stage. As I said National supports the third reading of this bill and the National Party looks forward to a good ongoing relationship with Te Roroa in the years to come. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
A kia ora ano tatou. I te tuatahi me mihi ahau ki a koe e kara. Me mihi ahau ki a koe i roto i te reo Maori. Me mihi hoki ki a koe i roto i ta taua reo Tarara. I roto i te reo Maori ko te kupu tatou tatou i roto i te reo Tarara kako si vrlo dobro 
  
tua atu i tena mi treba da se udruzimo 
  
me mahi 
tahi tatou tena koe. 
[ 
Greetings to us once again. First let me acknowledge you personally dear friend in Maori and in our Dalmatian tongue. We as is the term in Maori and in Dalmatian 
kako si vrlo dobro 
 and further to that  
mi treba da se udruzimo we must work together greetings to you 
.] 
First I acknowledge Mr Clem Simich someone who shares a great deal in common with me not the least of which is shared ancestry—from Croatian villages and islands to Maori princesses of the gumfields of Tai Tokerau. You delivered a great speech yesterday Mr Deputy Speaker and it is fitting that you should sit in the Chair as we attend to the final bit of business before we move this proposed legislation into law because you referred to a small settlement known as Aranga where our Tarara Dalmatian ancestors dug gum. That is very close to Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki two very historic reserves that lie in the area of Te Roroa. So I join with everyone else who has saluted you for the quality of stewardship you have brought to the House—the friendliness and the occasional council that you have offered. 
A kati e te whanau tena koutou. Nau mai haere mai i roto i tenei rangi whakaharahara na ka kite tatou i to tatou pire e whakamanangia ana. Kua pau nga mihi i roto i nga tutunga o aku hoa engari ko taku ki a koutou no koutou tenei Whare na reira tena koutou tena tatou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
So greetings to you the family. Welcome welcome on this great day when we are to see our bill pass into law. My colleagues have used up the 
congratulatory terms to you in their speeches but my message to you is that this House is yours. Congratulations well done and thank you all 
.] 
To the people of Te Roroa I say “Welcome back here.” This House is the people’s House. Today you join with us the parliamentarians to watch and shepherd this legislation through to a point of consummation. 
Dr Cullen deserves all the acclamation he has enjoyed; this has been a long and tortuous process. I was at the Waikaraka Marae in Kaihu in 1992 with Doug Kidd when the report was presented to the Crown. I was also at the meetings—where indeed we had Eva Rickard lost for a day or three but attending some of the early meetings of Te Roroa—when Lovey Te Rore Ned Nathan and a host of others worked with a younger generation to bed down a Waitangi Tribunal claim to recover the assets the land and the lost heritage of the tribe. So today Te Roroa comes and witnesses this process and it is with a great deal of pride that Parekura Horomia and I are able to say that its farms around the Maunganui Bluff area are now available with virtually no debt. That is reflective of the stewardship that Dr Cullen and senior Ministers have been able to bring. Metiria Turei went out of her way to support that as well. 
In the Waipoua Forest there is an old taonga called the kawekaweau. I recall going to the Waipoua Forest with Rev. Maori Marsden in 1985 and meeting Raiha Paniora who told us the story of a lizard known to cling to the bark of the kauri tree. However she said that once the people lost their connection with the land as a consequence of Crown alienation the lizard appeared to have gone forever. But I am sure that with the right karakia the right personalities and the good stewardship in Te Roroa the lizard can still be found at Kawerua a place where our tupuna Tohe stopped had a great feed of paua—before Parekura’s mataitai permits were needed—and satisfied the people. 
So with a great deal of pride and with support from the other side of the House let us put this chapter of Te Roroa’s recent history behind us and teach the young people—get them to embrace not only the heritage but the obligations of growing this settlement. And with the land that comes back to us let us make sure we do not repeat the mistakes of earlier generations in entering into deals transactions where they did not know quite what they were doing or where they were being taken advantage of. This land will have virtually no debt and for that we should salute Dr Cullen. Tena koutou tena tatou kia ora tatou katoa. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to salute you Mr Deputy Speaker in your Chair your Turu and repeat the sentiments expressed by the previous speaker that it is very fitting given your whanaunga in the gallery that you sit in the Chair for the passing into law of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. 
I am very proud to take a call on the third reading of this bill. I am conscious as is everybody in this House of the long years that Te Roroa have put in and I salute Te Roroa who are in the gallery today: a nga mihi ki a koutou e nga iwi e nga whanau o Te Roroa. I think your patience your doggedness your absolute humility in pursuing your settlement yet not pushing yourselves in a way that in your view might bring discredit to yourselves has been a lesson to watch. I became acquainted more directly with your claim when I was an Associate Minister to the Hon Doug Graham and we had some meetings way back then. But of course as Dr Cullen has made reference to the meetings for the settlement of your claim started much earlier in 1992. So that is a long time and you will have witnessed some real energy put into more recent claims that had their negotiations begin after yours but as I say you have been quiet but forceful and humble. I certainly admire the approach you have taken and congratulate you on the passage of your legislation here today and on the fact that finally you have accepted that you can move on. 
The Minister Dr Cullen traversed the additional aspects of the claim which have been negotiated recently. National opposed the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill up until these new additions were brought in. We did that on the basis and on the strength of the concerns that were put to us particularly when the select committee came to hear your submissions but also on the basis that we knew the offer was not sufficient. In your hearts you know that what is being offered here today is but a tiny fraction of what you once had which hopefully you will one day be able to build up from these small beginnings into something that is a fitting legacy for your grandchildren. In the end I think the Government had no choice. But that is fine because it has resulted in a settlement that Te Roroa can accept and which National now gladly supports. Basically the majority of Te Roroa says that this is finished it is enough and they want to move on. The claims had different aspects; we have seen a couple go through the House this morning. 
Te Roroa’s is unique. As a people they hail from ancient beginnings. They were once proud and substantial people living on land that they owned yet quite soon after their rangatira signed the Treaty they found themselves slowly but surely dispossessed of that which was theirs. Today we are here to celebrate and to congratulate Te Roroa. We can feel pleased and we can feel proud that we have a process in place that restores to them some of that which was taken from them. 
This claim relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty—obviously it is a Treaty settlement claim. The breaches include the cession of land at Te Kopuru in 1842 Crown land purchases from 1876 and the operation and impacts of the Maori Land Court the institution that we as Maori love so much! Thankfully in the 21st century it is easy to look back and see how and why things went wrong. The upside of it all is that in the 21st century our generation has been given the marvellous opportunity to right those things that for so long have been a blot on our historical landscape. 
Te Roroa have travelled a long road to have these claims addressed by the Government. They have sought redress on a number of issues. They have a package here today and hopefully—as I have already expressed—though it is small with the leadership and the love for their own and for others that they have shown particularly in these last 15 years they will be able to grow it. In any event they have decided—as the Crown did by making this additional offer—that it is time to recognise properly their situation and give them a basis on which to move forward. As hard and as difficult as these last 15 years and indeed all of the previous decades have been I always think that the hardest part comes when the settlement bill passes into law. Then Te Roroa will have to demonstrate further responsibility and leadership for their people their mokopuna and those still to come—the future generations. But what a good position to be in! Their tupuna looking down will feel much pleased for this day and no doubt are egging Te Roroa on to succeed. 
For us in this Parliament—I have said this many times but I feel it is important to repeat it every time because Te Roroa’s settlement is important to them—it is a privilege to be a parliamentarian in this House at this time. Today we are dealing with five settlements and it is a proud moment—certainly for Maori MPs and I am sure for all our colleagues across the House as well. Mr Deputy Speaker in your valedictory speech you made reference to your birth and upbringing in the places that Te Roroa hail from. That was enlightening for those of us who did not know the detail of your upbringing. It is rather fitting that you preside at a time when this bill passes into law. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker; engari i mua i te haere tonu ka huri aku mihi ki a koutou mai i te hau kainga o Te Roroa kua tae mai nei i runga i te kaupapa i hakahuihuingia i a tatou i roto i te Whare nei ara ko te wahanga mutunga kia hakaturengia tenei pire. I kite ano au i a koutou i tenei wa ka hoki mahara ki tena o nga matua nga whaea ko ratou i ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi. Na ko te matua a Lovey tena me Ned tena me era atu o nga whaea karanga maha. Kahore kau ke kei waenganui tonu i a tatou i te ra nei a-tinana engari mohio ana au kei konei ratou a-wairua. Tua atu i tena kei te mihi hoki ki tena o nga whanaunga e noho tonu ki te wa kainga e are taringa mai tena pea e matakitaki hoki tena koutou tena koutou a tena koutou katoa.  
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker; but before I continue I turn to acknowledge those from home from Te Roroa who have arrived here in respect of the matter that has brought us here in the House today the final reading of the bill that will pass into law. As I see you again today my thoughts go back to those fathers and mothers who have passed away such as Lovey Ned and a host of others. Although they are not here physically in our midst today I know for sure that they are present spiritually. Further to that I want to also acknowledge those relatives left at home who might be listening in or watching so greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all 
.]  
Before I proceed with my speech I again declare a vested interest in the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill by virtue of my whakapapa which links me to Te Roroa. Although that may be insignificant to some members of this House concerns have been expressed by people who represent organisations outside this House about my right to participate in the process that has seen this particular bill come to the stage where it is at today. I reaffirm to Te Roroa and my fellow members that in spite of that interest—that whanaungatanga—I do not qualify to be a beneficiary of this settlement. 
This settlement has been through a long process before coming to this House today. That is an indication of just how long the people of Te Roroa have travelled to be able to get a settlement that is something near to what they would like to see. Some people have described this settlement as the wahi tapu settlement because of the extreme interest that Te Roroa place on the land areas included in this settlement that are sacred to them. I ought to say at this time that I know there are other claimants whose own claims encompass much of the area that this particular settlement is all about. I refer to Wai 549 in the name of Rudy Taylor representing the Hokianga hapu and whanau collective. That is not an issue for Te Roroa; that will be an issue between that collective and the Crown. 
One of the comments made during an early Treaty settlement bill discussed by this House was about uniqueness. For me what is unique about this bill is the fact that the original report from the tribunal in hearing evidence about this particular claim led to a change in the legislation affecting land in private ownership. If my memory serves me correctly the original report by the tribunal recommended the return of certain land that was at the time held in private ownership. It is that aspect of the history of this settlement that I want to refer to. 
The reference I make is that people who held ownership of some of the land that is encompassed within this settlement have during the course of this bill making its way through the House made derogatory comments to me and about me in terms of whether I and the party I represent in this House—New Zealand First—thought that this would be a fair and an enduring settlement because of the position taken by the Crown in acquiring certain land that was once in private ownership. The question they asked was whether this settlement would be an enduring one. My response to that concern is that that is a matter between those people and the Crown not between the Crown and Te Roroa. I assure the people of Te Roroa that once this third reading is completed they can depart this House knowing full well that they have received a full and final settlement from the Crown. I hope that it addresses many of the concerns that they had during the process of this bill making its way through the House. 
I know that in all settlements there will always be differences of opinion. There will always be people who oppose or resist any suggestion as to how a settlement should take place. There will always be people who question the quantum. One of the things I have observed that has been different about this particular settlement is that even the negotiators mandated by their iwi had points of difference; I understand that one negotiator actually withdrew from the whole process. I suppose we should not be too surprised about differences of opinion as to the quantum and what should be provided in terms of redress whether it be cultural or commercial redress. But I notice that the bill provides for protocols that will allow communication and dealings between Te Roroa and different Government departments. For many Maori whether they be claimants or not all they want is the opportunity to be part of the process of decision making. In this particular bill like a number of bills preceding it the issue of protocols provides that opportunity for iwi. They want to be assured that they are part of the process of discussing land interests and cultural interests that affect them and that they will have some impact on decisions made by ministries and perhaps also by local bodies. 
I conclude by again congratulating the leadership of Te Roroa. The task has not been an easy one for them but I am not surprised that they have been able to endure the criticism and the hardship that dealing with their own people provides. I wish them all the best. Although those leaders may feel that it has been a hard task to get to this stage I say to them that the real job lies ahead. I conclude by saying as I have said in relation to all settlements that exercising leadership requires leaders to look behind themselves from time to time to ensure that the people they purport to lead are still there. 
Na reira aku whanaunga nga matua nga whaea nga mihi hoki ki a koutou. Nga manaakitanga o Te Runga rawa kei runga i a koutou mo nga ra kei te heke mai. Na reira tena koutou tena koutou kia ora mai ano tatou. 
[ 
Therefore congratulations to you my relatives and also my fathers and mothers. May the protective mantle of the Mighty above be upon you in the days ahead. So greetings to you greetings to you and to us all as well 
.] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will vote for the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge the tipuna who initiated this claim all the leadership that has carried it through and all those who are here today to celebrate its final conclusion. 
I cannot claim any whakapapa to Te Roroa as some others in the House here today can but I have stood under the great Tane Mahuta and marvelled with awe at its age and at the long sequence of history that it has observed over some 2000 years. A few years ago I planted on my farm in Coromandel a direct descendant of Tane Mahuta. When a friend of mine was standing underneath Tane Mahuta a seed floated down into her hair. She took it home potted it up and gave me the resulting seedling so in a very small way I feel I have a small connection with the whenua of Te Roroa. 
This is quite a small settlement and the Green Party has had serious concerns about the miserly quantum. At the second reading we said that land that had been stolen was not being returned. We described how the primary purpose of the 1992 Waitangi Tribunal claim by Te Roroa and the subsequent settlement was to remedy the Crown’s failure to set aside Kaharau Te Taraire Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki from the lands that were purchased in 1875 and 1876. The iwi were consistent in their understanding that those areas were to be set aside from any sales at that time. But the Crown rejected that and would accept only that if there were “any old graves on the block a few acres surrounding them could perhaps be reserved under the provisions of The Land Act without causing any inconvenience.” and that title would remain in the hands of the Crown. Indeed the Kaharau block with its very long history of dispute was not to be returned to iwi. The Greens refused to support the progression of the bill until the Government had made further progress on this issue because the Government simply did not consider that the return of those properties was of sufficient importance to increase the quantum. 
We have not achieved an absolute return of that land yet but the Government has been forced to take further action to better enable its return. In addition we have made the Government take action on the return of the koiwi that remained in the hands of strangers rather than the whanau. Although this is not perfect we accept the progress that the Government has made. Further work is being done on the question of returning Bob’s Block along with the return of the koiwi. We understand that the Government is to provide an ex gratia payment of $6 million to facilitate the purchase of deferred selection properties. Progress in the usual glacial way for Treaty settlements has been made. 
It is not the Green Party practice to oppose settlements. Although we are deeply opposed to the settlement process and believe that the Government and its agencies take advantage of the vulnerability urgency and poverty of iwi in the negotiations we do not believe we have a mandate to tell iwi and hapu that their work in battling these barriers is not worthy of our respect. We will support the iwi—those who have worked day and night to make some gains for their hapu. We know that this settlement will exacerbate a number of Treaty breaches and that there are those in Te Roroa who still have some legitimate serious concerns. But some progress has been made and we do not believe for a minute that these claims will be full and final because of the poor Government process. We know there is urgent need to access these traditional and commercial resources for the benefit of the whole iwi. 
We wish Te Roroa the best of luck with their settlement a strong and prosperous future for their mokopuna and congratulations on getting to this point today. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Ki te iwi o Te Roroa tena koutou kua tae manuhiri mai ki tenei Whare o tatau a tena koutou nau mai whakapiri mai. Tautoko ana i nga mihi ki nga mate nga mea kua whakahuahuatia me nga mate o te wa nei otira o tatau katoa nei. Na reira tena koutou nau mai whakapiri mai. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to the people of Te Roroa who have arrived here as guests to this House of ours greetings to you welcome draw close. I endorse the tributes to the dead those mentioned of yesteryear and of the present indeed all of ours. So greetings to you welcome draw close 
.] 
The marae at Waimamaku is called Te Whakamaharatanga and it was built as a fitting tribute to the soldiers from south Hokianga who fought in the First and Second World Wars. Today that name may well take on a new meaning. 
The story of the relationship between the proud descendants of Ngai Tuputupuwhenua and the Crown has been charged with conflict almost before the ink was dry on our constitutional document. We think today of the rangatira of Te Roroa—Te Pana Ruka Wiremu Whangaroa Timoti Takare Hamiora Paekoraha and Matiu Tauhara—all of whom signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. These tipuna were prepared to stake their honour on an aspiration for the future; a commitment to live together in this land. Two years after that signing an area of between 6000 and 8000 acres of land at Te Kopuru was ceded to the Crown. Just 2 years after the Treaty had been enacted conflict had erupted. 
The record of that first incident is as complex as any to follow over that century. Tangata whenua were concerned at the desecration of koiwi of human remains; an incident broke out in a local store; the land was ceded while Ngati Whiu and Ngati Kawa the hapu who had customary rights in the land were away in Hokianga; and Ngati Kawa later protested that those who made the cession had no right to do so. This one incident contains many of the elements that would be repeated over the centuries. 
Grievous harm and cultural offence is associated with the desecration of sacred burial sites. What does it do to the soul of a people when they have to endure the looting of their grave sites and the theft of their koiwi the human remains of their people? This is the repeated history for Te Roroa. Many of their tapu sites passed out of Te Roroa care in the land alienation process that started in 1875. Particular examples of desecration took place at Aratapu and Kohekohe. Taonga were also likely to have been taken from the Piwakawaka caves. This has been one of the most painful aspects of a very painful settlement. Those taonga are sacred to the people. The reburial of koiwi and the handing back of taonga are events of our living memory that connect us to a shameful history a tragic past. 
And so we come today to Te Roroa to acknowledge the recognition at last from the Crown of a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. We come today to acknowledge the impact that land alienation and fragmentation has had on Te Roroa leaving the people virtually landless. We come today to grieve with them in putting to rest the severe heart-wrenching spiritual and emotional sense of loss in understanding the heavy toll on a people in being separated from their wahi tapu and taonga. We come today to meld our tears with them nga aureretanga o Te Roroa—the continuous crying of Te Roroa. 
In my time short as it has been as the deputy chair of the Maori Affairs Committee there have been many moments of sadness as we have considered the settlement of historical claims. I acknowledge the chairmanship of Dave Hereora and I acknowledge the team as they also felt very strongly for the people of Te Roroa in considering this claim. 
There have been other issues in this settlement that have really affected us all. The length of time that has transpired over the course of settling the grievance extends back to 1861 when Rapana first spoke out over the cession of lands at Te Kopuru. Te Roroa began petitioning the Crown from the late 1870s. In 1887 Te Roroa wrote letters and petitioned Parliament. In 1907 there was another petition and further petitions in 1925 1930 and 1933. Maori members of Parliament—Hone Heke Te Rangi Hiroa and Tau Henare—were approached between 1903 and 1912. And finally 21 years ago Te Roroa lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. This is the history of Te Roroa seeking redress to their land. 
This Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill today finally brings closure to a long and difficult process but there is still the enduring pain particularly in regard to the exclusion of Kaharau and Te Taraire. We remember back to the Tribunal report on this matter of 1992 in which Te Roroa urged the Crown to take all steps to acquire these lands and return them to tangata whenua as hapu estates. That is the Tribunal report. 
In the submission received from Will Ngakuru we were told that although the Crown claims to be interested in having a “full and final settlement” for members of Te Roroa and descendants of Ngakuru Pana peace will never prevail until their burial places of Kaharau and Te Taraire are returned as was the wish of their tipuna. These sites of such sacred significance were never sold. It was always our contention that they needed to be included in the cultural redress provisions of the bill—either the Crown should purchase the lands or it should fund their purchase by Te Roroa. 
Although we acknowledge the sizable increase in the quantum we are disappointed that it is still inadequate to purchase either Kaharau or Te Taraire or to ensure future financial security for Te Roroa. But I must acknowledge Dr Cullen and the team for extending the $9.5 million with an ex-gratia payment of $6.5 million added to that. 
If we as a Parliament are to invest in the durability of any settlement then we must invest in the wishes and aspirations of the people. I understand there are ongoing discussions with Te Roroa about the possibilities of Kaharau and Te Taraire being included and I understand that Parekura Horomia the Minister of Maori Affairs has had something to do with this. 
There are many longstanding issues of injustice in this settlement. The treatment of waka tupapaku and koiwi has been found wanting. Dr Cullen explained many of those injustices earlier on. As with other settlements the internal conflicts and division that have occurred through the passage of this settlement have been damaging to the spirit of the people who are so proud to be Te Roroa. Throughout it all these people—the tall ones Te Roroa—have stood proud in their whakapapa passionate to defend the legacy of their tipuna. 
We in the Maori Party acknowledge the sacrifice and the dedication of all the people who have fought and who have kept on fighting to protect the honour of Te Roroa. I say to Te Roroa that we acknowledge them. Ka mihi atu ki a koutou mo o koutou kaha mo o koutou maia kia taea tonu tenei kereme. Tena koutou. 
[ 
I acknowledge you and your efforts and capability to get this claim through. Well done 
.] 
Te Roroa can be proud of their longstanding determination and of the efforts and struggles of their tipuna and their young ones alike to restore peace and enduring justice for their people. This is a day to remember he ra whakamaharatanga. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill which resolves a wide range of issues that Te Roroa have sought redress on since 1861. This bill acknowledges clear breaches of the Treaty including very poor process and clear alienation from lands and resources. The bill acknowledges the effect of those breaches over time on the people of Te Roroa and to ensure that those acknowledgments are not glossed over the redress includes an agreed-upon historical account. There is financial and commercial redress and rights of deferred selection and rights of first refusal are included in terms of future provisions. United Future congratulates the Crown and the iwi negotiators. We recognise that time and circumstances have seen much land in private ownership unable to be included. We wish Te Roroa well with the new beginning that today signals. We are very very happy to support this third reading. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to echo Shane Jones’ korero about how significant it is that you Mr Deputy Speaker are in the Chair when we are passing the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. 
I start my comments on the bill by saying “Not enough not enough not enough”. It is pathetic and I do not mean that as a shot at the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Deputy Prime Minister. I say that because this bill addresses one of the most shameful acts that any Government has put across a people—that is the continued desecration of a small but proud people. Again I do not refer to the current Government. In fact this House has gone some way to putting right the wrongs of former Governments. 
I feel rather proud that I can stand in the House and speak on this bill because my great-grandfather was part of the triumvirate of members of Parliament back in the days that took on board what had happened to Te Roroa. The funny thing is that in 1993 when I took up my spot in the House of Representatives for the next 3 years I was inundated with faxes and letters from Ngapuhi saying: “Those fellows aren’t Te Roroa. They’re just a little offshoot of Ngapuhi.” I will not name those people but they know who they are. I congratulate those who are left from Te Roroa on sticking it out and going the extra mile. 
This bill is not about only Te Roroa. In the history of New Zealand in a hundred years’ time people will look back on Te Roroa and the settlement and they will think: “Allan Titford”. I want to bring up the issue of Allan Titford because it is important to the whole story of Te Roroa that we do not forget that there is still bitterness out there over this settlement and it is not felt only by some of the whanau. It is also felt by Pakeha people who have been involved in the area. I just say to Te Roroa: “Go well!” Hopefully they can smooth the rough edges that unfortunately the Government has left them. We will try our best to smooth some of them as well. 
There has been mention of Waimamaku. I cannot stand here and not mention the first time I went to Waimamaku. I was working with the Department of Internal Affairs as a community development adviser and the people from Waimamaku had put in an application to the Lottery Grants Board to get some funds for the marae. I went up there and met with Whetu Naera and the folk up there and I wrote a report saying that they should get a grant of millions and millions of dollars for their marae. Whether they were successful who knows? 
There is an issue dear to my heart that arises out of the process with the bill and that is the repatriation of taonga whether repatriated from overseas or from within our shores. I must say it should not be a case of finders keepers losers weepers. It should not be that simple especially when we are talking about koiwi tupuna taonga. Which one of us in this House would like to see our grandmother and grandfather sitting on somebody else’s mantelpiece? That is how I equate it. Surely we have to do a hell of a lot more than we have been doing to repatriate those taonga into the proper ownership the hands of those from whom those taonga have been taken. 
The other significant issue was the Aranga farms issue—the Allan Titford issue—and out of that issue came the decree that no private land would or could be used in the settlement of Treaty claims. So good or bad that is what came out of that issue. I am disappointed that we could not get the return of the taonga in question and I know that everybody who comes back to the House after November will try in their role as parliamentarians to make sure they get those taonga returned. 
I want to I suppose apologise to Te Roroa and my apology is this: “We have given you so little I do not expect miracles. We have given you so little to work with it is a wonder that any good will come of it.” I sincerely mean that and it is not because of Te Roroa; it is because of us. I am still shocked and shamed by what we have been able to do for Te Roroa. They have been waiting 15 to 16 years for a settlement bill only to get $9 million in today’s money. That would most probably be the yearly salary of somebody from AIG or Lehman Brothers Bank. 
I notice that there is a 13-page preamble to the bill and it tells the story however briefly of Te Roroa. Maybe in the future we can gather up all our Treaty settlement bills and look at all the history that has been written in those preambles and maybe we can bind them and use them for the history lessons that we should be teaching our kids in mainstream education and kura kaupapa. 
I want to end by again saying that the Maori Affairs Committee did its job wonderfully well under the good stewardship of Dave Hereora. We travelled to Dargaville and I have to say that when we go through the select committee process and hear submissions there is always one that stands out. There is always one submission that really knocks us off our seats. A guy came up to the select committee table with a little tree and I thought that it was a gift for us as a select committee. I will not mention any names. 
Pita Paraone 
: It wasn’t any tree; it was a tupuna—it was a kauri. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It was “the” tree. It was a kauri. You know Maoris love theatre eh? We love theatre—that is why we come here. 
The guy told his story. He told us what he wanted to tell us and then he started hacking at the tree—well he was not hacking at it; he had proper secateurs or whatever they were. I was gobsmacked. I wanted that tree but maybe we will go to Te Roroa and get a couple of trees for our backyard at Christmas time. 
I offer my congratulations to the Nathan whanau and to everybody in Te Roroa on having the guts to stick it out and stick it out. For over 100 years they have been waiting for this. Finally I say that Uncle Maite would have been very very pleased and very very humbled by the experience. Kia ora. 
Bill read a third time. 
Waiata; karanga 
Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko  o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika comprises people from Taranaki iwi including Te Atiawa Taranaki Ngati Tama and Ngati Ruanui who descend from signatories of the 27 September 1839 Port Nicholson Block purchase ancestors listed in the schedule to the declaration of the Native Land Court in Wellington dated 11 April 1888 and/or ancestors who exercised customary rights in the Port Nicholson Block on or after 6 February 1840 by virtue of being descended from one or more of the named iwi in this settlement. This settlement covers the area of the Port Nicholson Block which is an area of approximately 271000 hectares spanning the Wellington Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt areas. The claims of Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika were lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal from 1987 onwards and the district report was presented in 2003. The Crown recognised the mandate of the negotiating team that settled the claims in January 2004. The terms of the negotiation were signed in mid-2004 the agreement in principle was signed in December 2007 and an initial deed of settlement was signed in June 2008. During June and July the post-settlement ratification process occurred which demonstrated sufficient support to proceed to the final deed of settlement in August 2008. 
The grievances to which this settlement relate stem largely but not solely from the Crown’s role in the sale of land within the Port Nicholson Block. In September 1839 the New Zealand Company a private land settlement company sought to purchase land in Wellington Harbour and its environs from Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Before the arrival of its representatives in New Zealand the company had already sold nearly 100000 hectares in the Port Nicholson area to prospective settlers and had held a lottery in London to allocate land to them. The company’s representatives negotiated the Port Nicholson deed which was signed on 27 September 1839 with Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in an attempt to purchase a large district of Port Nicholson and its environs that was subsequently known as the Port Nicholson Block. That deed was later found to be seriously flawed by a Crown-appointed land claims commissioner. In 1841 the Crown assumed ownership of the harbour islands despite the deed’s flaws and it also proclaimed the Wellington town belt to be a public reserve without offering compensation. 
The 1839 deed provided that a tenth portion of the land conveyed by it would be reserved for Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. The company intended that some of these tenths reserves would be occupation reserves while the remaining tenths reserves would provide an endowment fund. Despite the initial findings of the land claims commissioner the Crown established a process by which the company could validate its 1839 purchase. In return for £1500 which was negotiated between the company and a Crown representative Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika signed several deeds of release in early 1844 so that the company could complete its purchase. But it was always uncertain how much land had been purchased by these deeds of release. The Crown subsequently treated all of the land in the district covered by the 1839 deed as if Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika’s title to it had been fully extinguished. 
In 1846 in order to finally secure the lands to the company the Crown instructed the appropriately named Lieutenant Colonel McCleverty to find Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika alternative lands in exchange for their reserve lands around Wellington Harbour. As a result of these exchanges the iwi were pressured to move from their traditional lands to lands that proved inadequate to sustain their way of life. The Taranaki whanui grouping had no role in the administration of the remaining tenths reserves until 1985. There were long delays in establishing proper administration including delays in the passing of legislation. The Crown-appointed trustee also appropriated tenths reserves land for public purposes and much of this was alienated under the Crown-appointed trustee’s administration. In order to generate income from the reserves the Crown-appointed trustee established a regime of perpetual leases and over time the effects of inflation of course reduced rental returns. As a historian I should note at this point that such leases at the time did not seem to have the same disadvantage as they do these days because if anything prices were either stable or in the later 19th century actually declining so a guaranteed return seemed quite a good bet from the perspective of those who owned the land. As another consequence of settlement Wellington Harbour an important food and trade resource for Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika was adversely affected by the pollution and sewage generated by urban and industrial development as well as by reclamations around the harbour. 
There is much given even that brief recitation of the history for the Crown to apologise for. The Crown’s apology recognises that the Crown breached its obligations under the Treaty and its principles. This breach includes the Crown’s failure to consistently protect Taranaki whanui’s interests during the process by which the Crown and its agents acquired Taranaki whanui’s interest in the Port Nicholson Block the compulsory acquisition and endowment of their lands for public purposes and various acts and omissions in relation to delays in the implementing of legislation and administration of the reserves. This significantly undermined the tino rangatiratanga of Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and this impacted upon their economic and social development. As part of the settlement and in response to the Crown apology Taranaki whanui have very generously provided a statement of forgiveness to the Crown. The Crown of course is forgiven for those matters for which the Crown is apologising and this is a unique feature in a Treaty settlement. The Crown will recognise the traditional historical cultural and spiritual association of Taranaki whanui with a vesting of 18 sites including three Wellington Harbour islands the beds of the Pencarrow lakes and two associated esplanade reserves three other sites in Upper Hutt the Petone foreshore and Seatoun. The bill provides that the existing reserve status will be maintained except for Pencarrow lake beds and esplanade reserves which will instead have a conservation covenant on their title. The sites’ natural values will be protected and public access will be provided for. 
In addition the bill provides for the establishment of a Harbour Islands Kaitiaki Board to administer the harbour islands with an equal number of representatives from the Department of Conservation and from Taranaki whanui. Other sites to be invested in Taranaki whanui include the land under Pipitea Marae subject to the final conclusion of an arrangement with the existing lessees the Ngati Poneke Maori Association; two Crown-owned properties in central Wellington and one in Waiwhetu; the former Wainuiomata College site; the former Wainuiomata Intermediate School site; and the former Waiwhetu School site; an urupa site at Makara; and two dendroglyph areas near the Pencarrow lakes. There are to be statutory acknowledgments over 13 sites in the Port Nicholson area that register the special cultural association that Taranaki whanui have with those areas and those will require therefore consent authorities to provide Taranaki whanui with all resource consent applications under the Resource Management Act that may affect the areas named in the acknowledgments. A deed of recognition will cover the Rimutaka Forest Park Wainuiomata Scenic Reserve and the Turakirae Head Scientific Reserve. The deed of recognition will oblige the Crown to consult with Taranaki whanui and have regard to their views regarding the special association they have with such a site. These are a form of non-exclusive redress meaning that more than one iwi can have a deed of recognition over the same site. Eight place names in the Wellington area will be changed by the bill subject to approval by the New Zealand Geographic Board. 
In the spirit of partnership and in recognition of the social and economic advances that Taranaki Wwanui have mapped out for themselves the deed of settlement provides for a number of relationship instruments including a whole-of-Government relationship with the Crown which will assist Taranaki whanui to reach social economic and cultural goals. There is of course financial and commercial redress. There is a financial settlement of just over $25 million minus money previously paid on account; the right to purchase specific properties including the former naval station at Shelly Bay; the opportunity to purchase land under certain properties in Wellington City and Lower Hutt; and a 100-year period of right of first refusal over specific properties. 
Finally may I pay tribute to the Port Nicholson Block Claims Team led by Professor Ngatata Love who have brought to the table a collective representing more than 16000 members whose affiliations span at least four iwi. This is a massive achievement on the part of that negotiating team. The bill of course will proceed to a select committee. I am sure there will be very widespread support. I know that this bill is particularly supported by the mayor and the council of the city of Wellington who see this as a great platform on which to move forward together in the Wellington region. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The National Party will support the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill through all its stages. As a lifelong Wellingtonian born and bred here— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —unlike many people here—it gives me great pleasure to say that I enthusiastically support this settlement. It is long overdue. We deal with legislation as it goes through the House and we look at the provisions that make up settlement legislation but I submit that there is no substitute for looking at the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal because it is only when we do that that we see the injustices and the disgraceful conduct by the Crown which has gone on for far too long. 
This claim began as Wai 145. It was brought in 1987 by the Wellington Tenths Trust and the Palmerston North Maori Reserve Trust. As a result of hearings before the Waitangi Tribunal and evidence that had been adduced the tribunal reported that “it became apparent that the claimants’ grievances extended beyond matters which were solely the concern of the Wai 145 claimants.” and that is why other parties became involved—for example Ngati Toa Ngati Tama Ngati Rangitahi from Taumarunui Rangitane and others. The report is salutary and I think it would be really useful for members to read it and indeed for reports to be made more generally available because they play such an important role in outlining the history of our country. 
Let us look at the key tribunal findings on events as at 1840. The first key finding was that “At 1840 Maori groups with ahi ka rights within the Port Nicholson block … were Te Atiawa at Te Whanganui a Tara and parts of the south-west coast; Taranaki and Ngati Ruanui at Te Aro; Ngati Tama at Kaiwharawhara and environs and at parts of the south-west coast; and Ngati Toa at Heretaunga and parts of the south-west coast.” A key finding of the tribunal—and the Minister referred to it in the course of his speech—is that “The 1839 Port Nicholson deed of purchase was invalid and conferred no rights under either English or Maori law on the New Zealand Company or those to whom the company subsequently purported to on-sell part of such land …”. 
On the grievances from 1840 and the breaches of the Treaty “The Crown took most of the town belt land from Maori without obtaining their consent or carrying out any consultation and without making any payment …”. As one goes through the grievances one sees the constant repetition of lack of consultation: “The Crown also took various reserves in Wellington for public purposes and assumed the ownership of Matiu (Somes Island) in 1841”—again without obtaining any consent. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has referred to the inquiry that was set up. It was switched from an inquiry to arbitration—again without any consent and without any steps being taken on the part of the Crown to ensure that there was a fair process that was acceptable to Maori and could be followed. 
The 1844 deeds of release breached the Treaty. Ngati Tama were not treated properly at Kaiwharawhara and at Heretaunga. I pass over Ngati Rangitahi because they are not included in this bill. They will be the subject of other negotiations at some later stage. The Minister has referred to the McCleverty transactions which were unacceptable. So it goes on right up until very recent times—for example the alienation of urban reserves: from 1840 to 1882 23 valuable Wellington Tenths reserves were taken “for hospital educational and religious purposes without any consultation with or the consent of the Maori beneficial owners …” and when compensation was paid it was “manifestly inadequate”. The Minister said that there were complaints about administration of the Wellington Tenths Trust and they continued right through to 1985. Waiwhetu Pa land was taken for river protection purposes when it need not have been. 
These kinds of mistakes have been made since 1839 and it is high time this Parliament addressed them and introduced this legislation. National will certainly be cooperating because it is important that this bill be passed into law very quickly. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Before the luncheon break I was reviewing some of the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal which did not make particularly pleasant reading. They were with apologies to the late Justice Mahon a litany of failings. The last one I mention before turning to the bill relates to the Wellington Harbour and foreshore. The tribunal found that “Maori have been prejudicially affected by the actions of the Crown and legislative provisions which authorised the reclamation of substantial parts of the foreshore of Wellington Harbour. Those Maori so affected were Te Atiawa Ngati Tama Taranaki and Ngati Ruanui …”. I certainly endorse the statements made by the tribunal about reclamation around Wellington Harbour. The reclamation at Kaiwharawhara is a particularly bad one. 
Now we come to the bill. The bill sets out a number of standard provisions. Some matters did not need to be contained in the bill—they are simply contained in the deed of settlement—but they are also worth referring to. I do not want to encourage Mr Paraone but there is reference at least in the explanatory note to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles. I do not want that to be an invitation to Mr Paraone to make another speech about vague references to principles. 
What are the key elements of the bill? First it provides for vesting in the trustees of certain cultural redress properties. I refer to 1 Thorndon Quay which we all know; the Pipitea Marae site mentioned by the Minister; an urupa site at Makara; the Point Dorset Recreation Reserve which is another one that is well known to Wellingtonians; and the Matiu Historic Reserve. 
Next the bill sets out the Crown’s acknowledgment of the statements made by Taranaki whanui of their spiritual historical and traditional association with certain historical areas. The ones that immediately leapt off the page at me because of my knowledge of Wellington were the Kaiwharawhara Stream the Hutt River the Waiwhetu Stream Wellington Harbour the Government Buildings Historic Reserve the Turnbull House Historic Reserve and the Rimutaka Forest Park. There is provision for official amendment of eight place names ranging from Ngauranga Stream through to Steeple Rock—which as we all know is just off Seatoun. Certain elements of the settlement package are referred to in the deed of settlement only; the Minister has covered those. 
I am particularly interested in the option for the trustees to purchase certain properties particularly four Shelly Bay properties. I have had a bit of insight into the potential for a development there and I regard it as really exciting. I think all Wellingtonians will be beside themselves with joy when they see what is planned and that is why I am so keen for this legislation to get through. This is all pretty exciting and it will make Aucklanders absolutely jealous. 
Finally a very good acknowledgment in the deed of settlement which I do not think I have seen before provides a very good precedent for the future. It provides for an appropriate Minister of the Crown to chair an annual hui between relevant Ministers of the Crown and trustees for various purposes. I think that is an excellent idea and it is to be encouraged because the after-settlement discussions will prevent problems occurring in the future. 
All in all it is good legislation and National supports it. We will cooperate in the passage of the bill through all its stages including select committee. I will save my congratulations to the various negotiators and those who have played a part in the development of the bill until the third reading. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 A Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. I am very pleased to take a call on the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. Like other bills that come before us this bill has also had a long gestation and it is very fortunate that it now presents itself in the environment of the renewed energy and vigour of the Government under Dr Cullen. Dr Cullen seems to have been able to motivate several iwi to get some steam into settlements or claims that might have been lax or lying by the wayside or at a stage where iwi might have been thinking: “Well if nothing happens here we’re going to move to the next step.” So it is a very very fine thing that this bill now comes into the House. 
I feel I have a little bit of a connection with the settlement in as much as I suppose if one was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal which I was for 10 years then it is not surprising there may have been a connection to a settlement of an iwi I am not a part of. But I started sitting on the tribunal when it was hearing this claim. Obviously when I became a parliamentary candidate I had to step down from the tribunal but that for me gives an idea of the time of the claim. This is my twelfth year in Parliament and we started hearing the claim in the early 1990s. I remember going on a site visit with lawyers and other tribunal members—including Gordon Orr and Bill Wilson who has now been appointed to a higher bench—and having a look at the sites that once belonged to Taranaki whanui but of course up until a settlement started to be negotiated with the Crown that had not been theirs for some generations. So I congratulate the Taranaki families that have worked for so long and so assiduously to bring their claim to this point and to conclude a settlement. 
These settlements are difficult they are complex and they take time. Of course these families will know as well as anybody that at the time when their claim got off the ground and the hearings started the environment within which we were all operating was not necessarily conducive to Treaty settlements. As an example of how time has moved on and of how our nation has matured in relation to the responsibilities of a Government and its citizens to address longstanding injustice—which is what these claims are about—I tell the House that I recall seeing when the deed of settlement was signed some months ago an editorial in the  
Dominion Post  
that basically praised the iwi and the Government for reaching a settlement. I do not think we saw that sort of editorial 15 years ago which of course makes the activities of that time all the more significant. But these days and particularly in relation to this claim and this area the leading newspaper of this city has shown an obvious maturing and a clear appreciation of the importance of these settlements—that they are not just about Maori wanting things for themselves; they are about Maori wanting to feel a sense of justice and a sense that the laws of this country can protect their rights as well and can bring redress for the things done to them in the past that constituted a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. So yes when I opened the newspaper a few months ago and saw the editorial exhorting Wellingtonians and the people of this area to see this settlement as nothing but positive for this area and this economy I smiled and I thought “Wonderful—things have definitely moved on.” 
We come to the bill. My colleague Chris Finlayson gave a very good review I thought of the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. They show in essence that the Port Nicholson deed was a sham because within a very short time of its being signed the Crown—the Government of the day—started to breach those very things that it had promised to the iwi of this region. That was a bit of a shameful time but nothing that we need to feel guilty for because those breaches were made by our forbears in the wisdom of their ways. But here today we have the privilege and the pleasure of moving to put right some of the hurt and the tragedy that befell Taranaki whanui when quite quickly they found themselves being dispossessed of their lands contrary to what they had expected when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Congratulations to Taranaki whanui! In the scope of this settlement Taranaki whanui define their rohe as conforming to the boundaries of the Port Nicholson Block. There are 17183 registered members comprising people from Taranaki iwi: Te Atiawa Taranaki Ngati Tama and Ngati Ruanui; and other people from Taranaki including Ngati Mutunga. And for those people who do not have the advantage of being here in this Chamber this afternoon but who may be listening or watching I say that representatives from all those tribes are here today. We greet them; I greet them. 
According to the explanatory note of the bill “The settlement settles all of the historical claims of Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Those claims include all claims that are or are founded on a right arising—from the Treaty of Waitangi … or under legislation; or at common law … or from fiduciary duty; or otherwise.” But it must always be made clear and there is no harm in reminding ourselves that Taranaki whanui like other tribes claim only what they see as their rights in the law—their rights in the law—and that is the beauty of these settlements. They are founded on rights that flow either from legislation or from the common law of England. They are not some fanciful notions of what people think they should have; they are seriously founded in the law of this land. Therefore it is only right and proper that this Parliament some 160 years on is moving to address the longstanding injustice done to these people. 
Just briefly in closing I tell members that with my colleague Chris Finlayson I was privy to some plans that have been put forward for the Shelley Bay property. The plans look very very exciting and they underpin the importance of these Treaty settlements to the regions in which they are founded. These settlements are not just for Maori; they are for the areas and the regions from which they come and for all the people of those communities. They will be a benefit to all and ultimately they will be a benefit to all of us as New Zealanders in this great little country of ours. 
We will have more to say as this bill proceeds through its various stages but for today I want to say again “Congratulations! Nga mihi ki nga whanau nga iwi o Taranaki” and we will see members of the iwi as we proceed with this bill. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker a tena hoki koe nga uri o Te Ati Awa Ngati Tama Taranaki Ngati Ruanui koutou nga iwi mai i te rohe o Taranaki ara ko Ngati Mutunga koutou katoa i hakatau mai ki tenei Whare i runga i te kaupapa a hakahuihui mai i a tatou ara ko te pire e ki nei Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. Engari i mua i te haerenga o toku korero e hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki nga rangatira i kawe mai i tenei kaupapa mo nga iwi i hakahuangia e au i tenei wa. No reira e Ta Paora Ahorangi Ngatata Love Kara Puketapu Neville Baker Mark Te One June Jackson Liz Mellish Dawn McConnell Spencer Carr me Kevin Amohia tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker and to you the descendants of Te Ati Awa Ngati Tama Taranaki Ngati Ruanui and those of you also of Ngati Mutunga of the Taranaki region all of you who have gathered together in this House as well as us in regard to the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. But before I continue with my address I want to acknowledge the leaders Sir Paul Professor Ngatata Love Kara Puketapu Neville Baker Mark Te One June Jackson Liz Mellish Dawn McConnell Spencer Carr and Kevin Amohia who brought this matter before us on behalf of the iwi groups whom I mentioned earlier. Congratulations to you all 
.]  
As is my practice particularly with regard to Treaty settlements such as the one the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill relates to I declare a vested interest by way of both whakapapa and an association with some of the principals involved in the negotiations with the Crown. I know that it 
probably causes some alarm when I make mention of whakapapa. Well I say I have a niece who descends from Hineamaru the eponymous ancestress of Ngati Hine. She will certainly be a beneficiary of the settlement by virtue of her birthright within Taranaki whanui. So I declare that relationship by way of whakapapa. 
In terms of association I will list a number of names of people in the group that is responsible for bringing this bill to the stage that it is at today. I particularly make reference to Kara Puketapu Ngatata Love and Neville Baker because prior to coming here to this House I was an employee of the Department of Maori Affairs and both Kara Puketapu and Ngatata Love were chief executive officers of that department during that time. Also a senior manager Neville Baker was one of my senior officers. In fact all three I would suggest have contributed to my development in terms of an involvement in Maori development. So I just acknowledge that association. 
This bill follows a number of milestones that have led to this settlement which have included the recognition by the Crown of the mandate of the Port Nicholson Block claims team to negotiate the historical claims of the Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in January 2004. In July 2004 terms of negotiation were signed and an agreement in principle was subsequently signed in December 2007 leading to the signing of the deed of settlement that took place last month at Pipitea Marae. I had the pleasure of being in attendance to witness that important occasion. As was pointed out on that occasion the signing of the deed of settlement was a critical point in the journey toward cultural social and economic rejuvenation for Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and this bill is further progress in that journey. It should be noted that it has taken 21 years to settle what has essentially been 168 years of grievance for this iwi group. 
When making reference to the time that has been taken to complete settlements reference is often made to the number of iwi members who have passed on since claims were first lodged. E ki nei te korero ahakoa kei te ngaro ratou ki te tirohanga kanohi kei konei wa ratou wairua i waenganui i tatou i te ra nei. It is said that although they are lost to our sight they are present in spirit. Of course this settlement is no different from others in that regard. However it has been pointed out as an alternative observation that the progress of this settlement has seen seven elections seven Governments six different Prime Ministers a number of Ministers responsible for Treaty negotiations and “a parade of officials too numerous to count.” For me what has tremendous relevance when compared with other settlements is that the parties to this bill—that is the Crown and the mandated representatives—are actually based in the same town over which the settlement traverses yet it has taken as long as this to reach this point. 
This bill is not only significant for Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika but also for the wider Wellington community. The previous speaker from National Georgina te Heuheu articulated that importance for the local economy. The bill also has a uniqueness about it that I believe sets it apart from other Treaty settlements in that a sense of divine influence is intrinsic to the bill. I refer of course to the statement of forgiveness from Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika to the Crown for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi incurred by the Crown. The adage “To err is human to forgive divine” is certainly exemplified in that statement. 
The settlement includes a cultural redress package that features the transfer of a number of sites of cultural significance to the iwi some of which will retain the access rights presently enjoyed by the general public. I know that the previous speaker made reference to being privy to some proposed plans for Shelly Bay. I cannot comment on that; unfortunately New Zealand First has not been privy to those plans. But suffice it to say it indicates the commitment that Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika has made in terms of its contribution to the development and the well-being of the local community. 
I understand that a number of hui involving iwi members were held to consider this settlement package and that there was support to accept the settlement. There were 7120 registered adult members eligible to vote of whom 2634 cast valid votes. Of that number approximately 2597 voted in favour of accepting the terms of the deed of settlement. That shows just how effective the negotiating team has been in terms of articulating the details of the settlement but it also affirms the acceptance of the people of Taranaki of the quantum of this settlement. For whatever reason it can be seen that a number of eligible iwi members did not vote. The select committee process will afford them a further opportunity to have a say and I hope they will avail themselves of it and express their views. Again I acknowledge the leadership that has been exercised by iwi representatives in this process. 
New Zealand First supports the first reading of this bill. Kia ora. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 As a Wellington-based MP and a Wellingtonian born and bred I am delighted to support the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill on behalf of the Green Party. 
The grievances of the Taranaki whanui are so stark and so long-lasting—168 years—and the breaches of the Treaty are so extreme that it is extraordinary that this bill has taken so long. I am a little bit sad that the bill has been introduced only in the very last days of this Parliament but we look forward to its very speedy progression through the next Parliament. 
I recall being briefed on the settlement many many years ago when I was a Wellington city councillor and I understood then its significance not just for the Taranaki whanui but also for all the people of the Wellington region. Perhaps it is partly because the bill has taken so long and there has been such wide consultation that there is a sense of real anticipation and very positive enthusiasm for the settlement on the part of the people of Wellington. I agree with previous speakers that the settlement will have tremendous significance for the Wellington economy. I think we understand that which is why it is so eagerly anticipated. 
Like the previous speaker Pita Paraone I have not had the opportunity to see the plans for Shelly Bay. They have been discussed for many many years and I am delighted to hear that they are as exciting as the previous speakers have said. I congratulate all of those who have taken part in negotiating this settlement. It really has been a marathon. I think this bill is justly deserved long overdue and much supported by the people of Wellington. There is tremendous enthusiasm and support across all parties across all of our region and indeed across all of our nation for the bill. 
For the sake of iwi and hapu we wish very speedy progress in the second and third readings of this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Koutou no koutou tenei whenua kare e tika ana ma te manuhiri te tangata whenua e mihi. Hoi ano ko taku he whaiwhai haere i te ahuatanga o nga korero a era i tu i mua i a au. Whakatau mai ki roto i te Whare nei tena koutou katoa. Otira ka huri atu ki a koutou o te Kahui Ariki ka rere tonu nga whakaaro ki Waikato he piko he taniwha he piko he taniwha te korero nau mai tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker and to us all. This land belongs to you the people of the land and it is not for the visitor to welcome to what is yours. Mine is merely to follow up on what others before me have advocated. But do make yourselves at home in this House. I turn now to acknowledge you the King movement; to Waikato and that adage: at every bend of the river is a chief. Welcome greetings to you and to us all. 
] 
It is a rare day when every member of this House can acknowledge a special association to a Treaty settlement. Today is that day when all of us honour the descendants of Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika for their generosity in allowing us to work in their rohe. We honour the presence of the uri of Taranaki iwi who migrated here to Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara in the 1820s establishing settlements around the harbour Kaiwharawhara Waiwhetu and Te Aro Pa. We acknowledge them all: Te Atiawa Taranaki Ngati Tama Ngati Ruanui and Ngati Mutunga who descend from the ancestors of Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. 
For the uninformed some might ask how the heck the name “Taranaki” ends up in a bill about Wellington land. Similarly many would not know that Taranaki tuturu is actually one of the many tribes of Taranaki. This is the history a Maori history of migration. So to my in-laws and koeke of my Puniho and Parihaka children I say tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
The Maori Party as we say is unique in this Parliament for having kaupapa Maori drive us as our philosophical base. So it is with much pleasure that we note that the Port Nicholson Block claims also live by kaupapa that has paved the way for this significant day. I want to share with this House the kaupapa that they adhere to in their commitment to ensure that the settlement benefits are shared by all who are entitled to them. That kaupapa is: 
Together we arrived 
Together we lived 
Together we survived 
Together we go forward 
And together we will succeed. 
We believe that this kaupapa provides an impressive foundation for a future a foundation that validates the history passed down through the generations a foundation for success. 
Today is a critical point in the lives of generations to come. Taranaki whanui have mobilised all of their people to rebuild. These are people who have suffered the loss of connections to their harbour forests waterways and natural resources within the Port Nicholson Block. 
The ultimate offence had its beginnings in the 1839 deed of purchase the document that the Waitangi Tribunal later found to be invalid. It is somewhat overwhelming to think that we are doing what we are doing today in an attempt to make right the wrong committed almost 169 years ago to the day. The 1839 deed written in draft form and signed on 27 September 1839 but written only in English assumed ownership of the Wellington Harbour and its environs without even including a map of the boundaries. Before the New Zealand Company had even set foot in Aotearoa it had sold nearly 100000 acres of the Port Nicholson area to prospective settlers through a grand lottery in London for goodness’ sake! The 1839 deed of purchase re-appropriated the whole of Wellington city and its suburbs including Lower Hutt Upper Hutt and Wainuiomata. 
Wellington city is of course the seat of Government an area of major population the site of one of our most important ports and a business hub. The rugged hills and the lack of flat land mark out this space as one in which the whenua has acquired great financial value. 
I understand that it was 21 years ago that two men submitted a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal: Makere Rangiatea Ralph Love and Ralph Herberley Ngatata Love. Ka mihi ki a raua. That claim was on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board the Wellington Tenths Trust and the Palmerston North Maori Reserve Trust together with nga iwi o Taranaki. The claim was made on the following grounds: the Crown’s failure to ensure that one-tenth of the Port Nicholson Block was reserved as provided for in the 1839 deed of purchase for Port Nicholson; the exchange of reserve land in Port Nicholson for land of a lesser value in Palmerston North; the taking of Wellington Tenths reserve land for endowments; and the leasing in perpetuity of Wellington Tenths and Palmerston North reserve land. 
And so today we honour all those of Taranaki whanui for their perseverance in putting on the table claims relating to the action of the New Zealand Company the theft by the Crown of Maori reserved lands and the failure of the Crown to provide an adequate land base for Maori. They have also put on the table the impact of the regime of perpetual leases the damage and devastation caused by pollution and sewage arising from urban development and the reclamations around the harbour to provide land for public purposes. 
This is a day too to acknowledge and congratulate Taranaki whanui and a very impressive claims team. Some of them have been mentioned but I acknowledge them again: Professor Ngatata Love Sir Paul Reeves Neville Baker Kara Puketapu June Jackson Liz Mellish Mark Te One Dawn McConnell Dr Catherine Love Spencer Carr and Kevin Amohia. That there is a team! They have told their story which has been 21 years in the drafting but decades and generations in the creation. It is a story in which many of the main characters have now passed on and are no longer with us. We remember them. E hoa ma you have done well. 
The settlement has a quantum of $25 million as well as the opportunity to purchase a number of Crown properties in Wellington city and in the region—a portfolio of Crown-owned land estimated to be worth a mere $120 million. There is a significant cultural redress package recognising their key sites of tribal meaning including the three islands in Wellington Harbour. The lake beds of Kohangatera and Kohangapiripiri at Parangarahu are included and reserve lands such as Wi Tako Scenic Reserve. 
But there are some unique aspects of this settlement I want to bring to the attention of the House. This settlement is unique in that it introduces the concept of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a concept that we as tangata whenua understand. It is an essential component of reciprocity. In the act of forgiveness there are two players: those who extend the spirit of forgiveness and those who are forgiven. The difficulty in this case is that although the persons who are doing the forgiving are here in the flesh and form the Crown is a lifeless object—an entity bereft of emotion. Will it weep? Will it wail? Will it cry? This is a tremendous gesture on the part of Taranaki whanui who have offered a statement of forgiveness to the Crown. The Maori Party commends Taranaki whanui for an act of honour and great integrity an act that demonstrates the ultimate expression of manaakitanga. 
There are other elements of innovation that I want to note. The initiative of using an e-voting system including Internet voting was very impressive. Some 15 percent of the voters chose to vote online which is something this House may well consider worthy of looking at in depth for other voting processes. There was the commitment to ensuring that the ratification process encompassed not just those living in this rohe but also whanau living across the Tasman in Sydney and Brisbane. There was also the speed of the ratification process. The process of going from a signed agreement in principle to an initialled deed of settlement within 6 months is also as I understand it pretty unprecedented. In fact the rumour is that there are members here today who were hoping that the current urgency sitting might have been extended to allow Taranaki whanui to complete all of the stages of the bill on this great day. 
We in the Maori Party recognise the achievements of Taranaki whanui today. Together they have survived; together they will go forward; together they will succeed. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou kai aku rangatira kua tae mai ki tou whenua tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
I am full of admiration for you my chiefs; the time draws near when it becomes your land. Congratulations and good wishes to you all 
.]  
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
: 
A tena koe te Wahine o Poupou o te Whare. There are just a few things I need to say to my colleagues. The first is to Pita Paraone: we are very inclusive people. Ahakoa te tika mai o te whakapapa ra a to tamahine i tana hokitanga mai ki te rohe o Taranaki.  
[ 
Although the genealogy of your daughter when she came back to the region of Taranaki is accurate. 
] 
I thank my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for such a very historically erudite presentation. I say that without any facetiousness whatsoever. Kua pai te kupu “erudite”! 
A tena tatau. Ehara tenei tu e tu mihi atu ano ki a koutou e te iwi e nga whanaunga engari kua noho i te taha o koutou ra a te Whare Ariki ara Tainui nui tonu a Taupiri Maunga Pirongia Kakepuku Titiraupenga. Tena koutou e noho ngaitahi ai i runga me ki nga korero tawhito o nga kiwai o te kete. Tena koutou e tukuna atu nga mihi ki a koutou. 
[ 
So greetings to us. I am not actually getting up to formally welcome you the people and relatives but merely to acknowledge the times spent with those of you of the household of the King movement and Tainui at large beneath the mantle of Mount Taupiri Pirongia Kakepuku and Titiraupenga. Greetings to you living as one in your ways so steeped in history. My regards to you and congratulations. 
]  
I am absolutely totally privileged to be standing here today. It is a kind of life cycle. If we live long enough like Parekura Horomia and me then in our life cycle we have a variety of experiences. I use that as a kind of exemplar because my life cycle began by being born as someone has alluded to into a legacy of tribal disillusionment marginalisation and poverty—socially culturally economically and spiritually. The privilege here is that I am old enough—ehara i te kaumatua tinana [ 
not old physically 
]—to now participate in an extraordinarily historic day. 
I am not the only one who has gone through that kind of experience debilitating as it was. We are all descendants of that experience. But the test is being able to manage the experience and do more than merely survive. The test is a gruesome test but it has also I suppose set pathways going forward for all of us. 
This afternoon I listened to a waiata that was being sung. It went like this: “E toru nga mea nga mea nunui …”. Well I want to change the words. It reminded me that this is not the only muru raupatu experience that Taranaki whanui is going through. It reminds me of what happened in Taranaki. It is the same as what happened in Tainui and the same as what happened in Tauranga—absolute and total muru me te raupatu. We have the experience again here in Te Upoko o Te Ika: ko nga mahi taurekareka nanakia hoki o ratau ki te tahae whenua. 
[ 
their wretched and scandalous methods of taking land by stealth 
.] 
We can go across the straits of Cook Strait Te Moana o Raukawakawa and it is there as well. A tribe—very peaceful it was—e tipu ake mai raro i te tihi maunga titohea Taranaki [ 
that sprang up from beneath the summit of barren Mount Taranaki 
] has gone through that debilitating process three times; the same people. 
In respect of Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka we have a Tainui-Taranaki collective claim there as well. I ask members what that says about the resilience of our people. At the very least we can say that it is absolutely extraordinary. There is a whakataukitanga korero that I want to refer to here. It is a kind of philosophical message that goes like this: “Whangai mai to hoariri.” The literal meaning of this phrase has something to do with “feed thy enemy”. What Taranaki has done here in that regard as has been referred to is the extension of a statement of forgiveness. I can understand whence that came. Mehemea kua mau ai koutou i te raukura titia te raukura a maunga rongo [ 
If you have worn the comb-like feather the feather of amnesty 
] then it is understood what it means. What an incredibly powerful gesture the first of its kind in any claim so far. 
I pose the question about what this country could have been were it to have grown from the promises of the Treaty of Waitangi rather than the breaches: “In the Treaty’s words lived the potential to disavow colonisation as previously known with its dire consequences for native peoples around the world. The parties to the Treaty had an opportunity to show that with goodwill it was possible for new settlers and indigenous people to gain and learn from each other. But almost immediately that opportunity slipped away.” In the end our colonial experience was classic not unique. The mistakes of other nations which we had the chance to avoid we instead repeated. 
I think that kind of analysis is huge because the consequences of this failure are great and multiple. Aotearoa New Zealand is perhaps a lesser nation as a result of the Crown’s failure to uphold its obligations to so many generations of our people and particularly those who have not survived to see kua whakatutuki mai nga moemoea a kui ma a tauheke katoa. [ 
the dreams of all the old folk men and women coming to fruition 
] But all has not been lost. I take great heart and positiveness from what we as a Government have done under the leadership of Takuta Cullen me ana nei Minita tautoko. 
In closing I also give a little praise to Taranaki whanui up there in the Speaker’s gallery for their leadership wisdom vision and creative approach to being able to be here and resolve those issues that confronted them as a people. To a great extent that is related to the ability they had and have as leaders in our society today. 
No reira e te iwi me te Whare ka nui aku nei mihi ehara ki a koutou anake engari ki te katoa e wakakopekope mai nei i raro i te tahuhu o te pou Whare tihei mauri ora ki a tatau.  
[ 
So to the people and the House I am full of admiration not just for you but for everyone assembled here under the ridgepole of this House. The breath of life to us all 
.] 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Waiata 
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee. 
This bill achieves three important things. It recognises the special and enduring relationship that Waikato-Tainui has with the Waikato River historically culturally and spiritually manifested in the dual principles of te mana o te awa and mana whakahaere. In so doing it provides a legal structure within which that relationship can be protected and exercised in the future and which also recognises the connections that other iwi have with the river. Thirdly it creates a framework within which all communities with an interest in the river can play a part in its stewardship. Each of the changes created by this bill focuses on the goals on which all river stakeholders can agree the restoration of the health and well-being of the Waikato River and its sustainable management into the future. This is a historic achievement for Waikato-Tainui for all other residents in the Waikato region and because it is the largest and most significant river system in the country for the people of New Zealand. 
When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 it contained the promise of a lasting and mutually beneficial relationship between the Crown and Pakeha—sorry the Crown and Maori; the other one we call an election promise when it is broken. Too often the promise and potential of that agreement have remained unfulfilled. This legislation aims to realise that potential and promise and to establish an innovative co-management regime for the Waikato River. 
The bill establishes the Guardians of the Waikato River on which all river iwi and regional and national stakeholders are represented. It sets out a vision for the Waikato River. The guardians are responsible for the vision for the river and the strategy to achieve that vision. The guardians establishment committee set up following the agreement in principle for this settlement in December 2007 has already been hard at work and has completed a public consultation process to determine the vision and strategy the key elements of which are incorporated and recognised in this bill. This provided a confidence-building process in which Waikato-Tainui and all other stakeholders—other iwi regional interests and the Crown—could begin to focus on what was required to restore the health and well-being of the Waikato River. The way in which all members of the Guardians Establishment Committee carried out their tasks and the relationship they have developed provides cause for optimism that this settlement will have a profound and positive impact. 
The bill also establishes the Waikato River Statutory Board. This board on which Waikato-Tainui Environment Waikato and other local authorities are represented provides for Waikato-Tainui to participate at the highest level in the co-management of the river. The board will be responsible for the implementation of the vision and strategy and for monitoring progress towards the goals that have been established. 
To ensure the changes introduced in this legislation do not duplicate existing processes and create unnecessary additional costs for all parties the bill integrates this settlement within existing regulatory frameworks by providing legislative recognition for the vision and strategy. The vision and strategy will be a national policy statement for the purposes of the Resource Management Act and a statement of general policy for the purposes of conservation legislation. Through a Kiingitanga Accord between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown the bill will also provide the structure for future relationships between Waikato-Tainui and Ministers of the Crown and their agencies as they work together to restore the health and well-being of the river. 
To ensure the relationships facilitated by this legislation can be sustained the settlement provides funding for several purposes: to provide a $50 million fund for the Waikato Raupatu River Trust to undertake initiatives to restore and protect their relationships with the river and its flora and fauna to provide for ongoing participation by Waikato-Tainui in the co-management framework established by this legislation and to provide a $20 million endowment to support the vision of the late Sir Robert Mahuta who led Waikato-Tainui through the historical settlement process and initiated the claims on which those settlements have been based. Finally the settlement establishes a clean-up fund with an initial Crown contribution of $7 million per year for 30 years. 
The settlement is a clear and straightforward solution to a complex and difficult problem. The Waikato is our largest river system. It supports a complex interlinked series of relationships in which human habitation is a major component. Long-term failures in existing management relationships associated with the river have seen the quality of this vital system compromised. Future generations Maori and non-Maori faced the prospect of inheriting a river system in a steadily degrading state. This settlement provides the framework within which that degradation can be properly and adequately addressed and funded the river returned to health and well-being and a sustainable management regime implemented so that our children and grandchildren will inherit a healthy river. 
In 1975 Sir Robert Mahuta said: “The River belongs to us just as we belong to the River. The Waikato tribe and the River are inseparable. It is a gift left to us by our ancestors and we believe we have a duty to protect that gift for future generations.” Sir Robert’s work has been carried on and fulfilled in this settlement under the leadership of his widow Lady Raiha Mahuta and Tukoroirangi Morgan. In introducing this legislation to implement the Waikato River deed of settlement we are beginning to carry out that duty adequately—in partnership with Waikato-Tainui—for the first time. 
In closing these comments I would like of course to pay tribute to Waikato-Tainui under the leadership of King Tuheitia and to recognise the presence in the public gallery of his sister as his personal representative and his chief speaker. It is the determination of Waikato-Tainui that has placed the restoration of the health and well-being of the river at the forefront of this settlement and ensured that every aspect of this bill is focused on that goal. 
This agreement builds on the relationship between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown that was re-established with the settlement of historical land claims. That settlement has been of great benefit to both Waikato-Tainui and the wider community. I expect no less from this settlement. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 E te waka o Tainui te awa rere ana e Waikato nga uri o Te Wherowhero e Te Arikinui mai i tenei o Taupo Nui a Tia he mihi he mihi tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
To you the canoe of Tainui the river of Waikato that flows the descendants of Te Wherowhero and to you Tuheitia this one of the great lake of Tia humbly acknowledges and recognises you; greetings to us all 
.] 
I feel very privileged to rise to speak on the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. This is a significant bill that has come into the House this afternoon and having acknowledged the elders and the uri o Te Wherowhero in the gallery and others in support I want to turn—hopefully not too lengthily because 10 minutes does go quite quickly—to the preamble which sets out some of the essence of the emotions the sentiments and the passion that I believe the iwi bring to the House this afternoon. 
Te mana o te awa is one of the principles underlying this bill. To Waikato-Tainui the Waikato River is a tupuna—an ancestor—that has mana prestige and in turn represents the mana and mauri or life force of the tribe. Respect for te mana o te awa the spiritual authority protective power and prestige of the Waikato River is at the heart of the relationship between the tribe and its ancestral river. Mana whakahaere is the other underlying principle that this settlement will proceed on. Mana whakahaere embodies the authority that Waikato-Tainui and other river tribes have established in respect of the Waikato River over many generations to exercise control access to and management of the river and its resources in accordance with tikanga—that is the values ethics and norms of conduct that are special to this iwi. For Waikato-Tainui mana whakahaere has long been exercised under the mana of the Kingitanga. 
Waikato-Tainui as at 1840 possessed their river and their lands in accordance with their tikanga along with other Waikato iwi. They made public statements of their authority over the river from very early when they first became concerned that the Crown might itself claim authority over it and that was as early as 1862. In July 1863 the Crown’s military forces crossed the Mangatawhiri River. In the ensuing war of 1863-64 the Crown forces attacked by both land and water the people of the Waikato. 
In December 1863 Crown forces occupied Ngaruawahia the home of the king and the political centre of the Kingitanga. During the war many communities that supported the Kingitanga were driven out of the Waikato. In 1864-65 military settlements including Hamilton and Cambridge were established on the Waikato River and also on the Waipa River. Confiscation of Waikato lands followed in 1865. The confiscation of those lands gave rise to a settlement that was concluded in this House in 1995 under the leadership of the late Te Arikinui Dr Dame Te Atairangikaahu and Sir Robert Mahuta. That was but the first part of what I understand is really three parts that restore to the people of Waikato-Tainui that which was theirs in the beginning and was taken away from them by successive Governments. 
I am proud to stand here today following in the footsteps of the Rt Hon Douglas Graham who under the leadership of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger negotiated the first Raupatu claim for Waikato-Tainui. This bill is the second in relation to the river which was alienated from them through the same raupatu forces that occurred back in the 1860s. I acknowledge the leadership of Dr Michael Cullen in bringing this settlement to the House today. I understand that in the fullness of time the tribe’s interest in its harbours will also come to this House. 
This is a great day. The fact that this settlement has now reached this House demonstrates the great leadership of the Waikato-Tainui people and I feel very privileged to stand and talk to their aspirations to their moemoea. None of this has anything to do with me or us in this House; it has everything to do with what they aspire to and what they felt ought to have been since the 1860s. The bill itself and the provisions that make up the settlement are encapsulated in the vision that the tribe itself has put forward for its river. I read from clause 1(2) of schedule 2 which sets out the vision as being “for a future where a healthy Waikato River sustains abundant life and prosperous communities who in turn are all responsible for restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and all it embraces for generations to come.” 
In other words the whole thrust of this settlement is about restoring the river and restoring the relationship of the tribe with its river and the communities around it. In that regard it has huge importance not just for Waikato-Tainui but indeed for all of the communities that surround the river for the wider public and for the New Zealand community in general. 
This is the fourth bill that we have had the privilege of debating today. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Fifth. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: This is the fifth bill—I am sorry I am losing count which shows how long we have been doing this. 
This is the fifth bill that we have been involved in today. It is about a people and their river. No doubt some questions will be asked outside this place about who has the ownership and happily no one need be concerned about that. Although there are some provisions in this settlement that foresee possible ownership interests being raised in the future that is not the thrust of this bill today. The thrust is about the well-being of the river and the well-being of a people who since the 1860s have been deprived of access to it and their rights to protect it not just for themselves but for the wider community. 
I refer briefly in closing to what I understand has been an extensive consultation process on the part of Tainui led by Lady Raiha Mahuta a fact that in itself stirs emotions because of course Sir Robert Mahuta led the previous negotiations. These were also led by Tuku Morgan a former member of this House who really should be sitting down here. He is sitting up in the gallery but he belongs in here as well. My heartfelt congratulations and my heartfelt aroha go to the people of Tainui for the enormous amount of work they have done. They have done it in a patient and humble way in the way that they are and slowly but surely they have achieved a very momentous settlement. I am very pleased to be in this House to support the introduction of the bill. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
Debate interrupted. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There has been a discussion between the whips and in order to avoid interrupting this debate I seek leave for the commencement of the valedictory speeches by retiring Labour members to be postponed until the conclusion of the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and for the dinner hour to be postponed until the conclusion of those valedictory speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought to carry out that action. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none that is agreed to. 
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 One can always rely on New Zealand First to come to the party. Kati ra Tainui waka Tainui tangata whare Kahui o Tainui waka tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. Tena hoki koutou i tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te Whare e pa ana ki te kaupapa wa tatou awa ara ko te awa o Tainui. He mihi hoki ki a koutou e noho tonu ki te wa kainga i raro i te taumarumaru o te maunga tapu o Taupiri koutou hoki e are taringa mai e matakitaki mai ki enei korero i puta mai i roto o te Whare e pa ana ki wa tatou awa. Na reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. 
[ 
So to the canoe people and King movement of Tainui greetings greetings and greetings to you. Acknowledgments to you who have arrived here to the call of the House in respect of the matter relating to our rivers and that in particular the river that belongs to Tainui. I acknowledge those as well who remained at home under the protective mantle of the sacred mountain of Taupiri those of you listening in watching these debates from the House about our rivers. So greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you 
.] 
Again as I always do in these settlements—but only where it applies—I have to declare a vested interest. That vested interest is as a result of whakapapa. I descend from Hineamaru and included in the Waikato whakapapa is the younger sister of Hineamaru Rongopatutaonga. In that regard I declare a vested interest. I also ought to say that one of the principals representing Tainui in the negotiations is in fact married to a Paraone who happens to be a relative of mine. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on making such a fine choice. A hoi na noa e Tuku he korero noa iho tenei engari horekau i whakakoretake i whakaitingia te kaupapa o te pire nei. Na reira nga mihi ki a koe ki a koutou hoki. 
[ 
Anyway Tuku this is just mere speculation but not meant to belittle nor render the matter relating to this bill as something of no consequence. Congratulations to you Tuku and to all of you as well 
.] 
Negotiations for this particular settlement began in 1995 and were addressed again in 2005 reaching a climax in December 2007. It is a major step towards ensuring the environmentally sustainable management of the Waikato River which has been polluted and degraded over many years. The settlement involves the co-management of the upper Waikato River from Huka Falls to Karapiro. In my discussions with those who were responsible for driving this settlement on behalf of their iwi emphasis was placed on the word “co-management”. It was never their intention to take control of what they rightly believe has always been theirs. One can say it is the highest level of co-management achieved anywhere in New Zealand. Can I suggest that iwi and the rest of New Zealand society will be observing with great interest how this arrangement will pan out. For me I have no difficulty in expecting that it will be a very fruitful and beneficial arrangement between the iwi and other interested parties which will see the health of the Waikato River improved on what it is today. 
The agreement will ensure the river’s clean-up is timely engages all stakeholders and considers iwi interests. A group known as the Guardians Establishment Committee was set up earlier this year to determine a vision and strategy for the river and to implement that strategy. It consists of representatives of Waikato-Tainui other river iwi and regional and national interests in the river. Five iwi will become an integral part of the governance and management framework for the river. The deed of settlement signed in 2008 will create the Waikato River Clean-Up Trust with a maximum of $210 million to spend on river enhancement activities over the next 30 years along with a contestable clean-up fund to which the Crown will contribute $7 million a year for 30 years and the protection of the Waikato River will have significance for all New Zealanders. 
The key elements of this settlement comprise the acknowledgment of the Crown a commitment to co-management—something that is very important to the iwi—recognition of the statement of significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui legislative recognition of the vision and strategy for the Waikato River the establishment of and the granting of functions and powers to the Guardians of the Waikato River through the settlement legislation the establishment of and the granting of functions and powers to the Waikato River Statutory Board through the settlement legislation co-management arrangements including the establishment of an integrated management plan and the Kiingitanga Accord. 
About 3 weeks ago I attended a local body regional conference in Gisborne. It was a meeting of local bodies that encompass much of the middle of the North Island and some local bodies that have the Waikato River running through their boundaries. In discussion with some of the representatives from those local body authorities although they appreciate having the opportunity for a co-management arrangement for the care and the well-being of the river there was some expression of concern as to how it might impact on existing legislation particularly in terms of the Resource Management Act. I hope that during the select committee process those local bodies that have those sorts of concerns will take the opportunity to make submissions to air their concerns so that the select committee may be able to consider whether in fact their concerns are real or otherwise. 
I do not have too much more to say. Suffice to say that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill to a select committee. Why? Because it is something that the iwi has been responsible in formulating it is something that the iwi has indicated they want but more important it will provide a vehicle for the well-being and the care of New Zealand’s longest river the Waikato River. Na reira e tatou ma ka nui enei korero mo tenei wa huri noa huri noa tena koutou tena koutou kia ora mai ano tatou. 
[ 
That is enough to us for now so greetings to you and to us throughout once again thank you 
.]  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker—again. I will begin by saying good afternoon to the brother-in-law. It is a real pleasure for me to have the brother-in-law sitting up there on this momentous occasion—for more than one reason—so I suppose I had better state that there might be a conflict of interest. There might also be a conflict of interest with my—I had better be careful here—auntie first cousin once removed Denese Henare. 
I will concentrate on three issues. One of them is co-management the second is the significance and recognition of the Waikato River and the third is the legislative recognition of that vision and strategy. In relation to the first I say that we must not let New Zealand and the world be scared of co-management. It means nothing more and nothing less than two people being able to get on with each other for a common purpose. Co-management to me means moving forward and not being tied to the old philosophy that Governments and local authorities are the only ones that can do things for local people. Co-management means a unique step for New Zealand; it is a unique step in this country’s history that we have been able to realise that two people can sit alongside each other and do things together rather than in just the old outdated colonial way. It is unique in the world because we can show the world how two peoples who have had their differences can actually move forward together without throwing bombs at each other and without the carnage we see around the world. I say that co-management can work that we have an opportunity to see it work with the introduction of this bill and that I for one congratulate both sides—iwi and the Government—on getting this bill to where it is now. 
In terms of the Waikato River the significance is twofold. It is significant in terms of iwi; the river is their lifeblood. Without the river they are nothing and without them the river is nothing. The river also has significance for people outside the rohe of Waikato—that is for people like me who live in the city because when we turn on our taps we may or may not get some of that water. So it is incumbent on this House and also on iwi that they are in a position to make sure that that water is clean. I am glad that the essence of this bill is about the management and clean-up of the river—and that is not a day too late. The recognition of the significance of the Waikato River is about to be written into legislation and I want to give an example of how the spirituality the recognition and the significance of what is in the river is being recognised around the world. 
Not so long ago along State Highway 1 there was an issue with a taniwha. A lot of people thought “Well let’s not be silly and let’s not recognise the issue for what it is.” But I am of the opinion and of the thought that it would have been better to build a platform and say to people: “This is who lives in this river—this is the significance of this river.” If members think that that is silly then why do Scots people at Loch Ness have such reverence for the Loch Ness monster? Why do they dine out on the fact that that is theirs? It is a part of tourism it is a part of the area’s significance and it is a part of recognising the people’s spirituality. So if they can do it then why the hell cannot we? I think it is all about growing up and recognising that for what it is. 
I turn to the issue of legislative recognition and of the recognition of a vision and a strategy. Some may think that it has never been done before but I am proud of the fact that it has been done before when my brother-in-law and I were part of a Government that recognised Te Aho Matua and put that into legislation so it is not a new step. But I congratulate this Government on taking a bold step in recognising a vision and a strategy that is really a philosophy. Sometimes lawyers and people from the Office of Treaty Settlements may not think we can do those sorts of things but we can. 
This morning we have come from the Te Arawa region in the legislation. We have traversed the boundaries inside Tuhoe and Tuwharetoa we have moved up north to Te Roroa we have come back to Wellington and now we are in the area of Tainui. Later on we will go back to where we started with the Whakarewarewa bill in Arawa. It has been a very very busy day. It will be a long day and I think it is wrong to have so many Treaty bills one after the other. I know that time has conspired against us and conspired against the Government but I think we should take the lesson that that should never be done again; it should never be done again where there are five bills one after the other. I do not think it gives the House time and I do not think it gives the people who come to listen time to take it all in and be part of the proud occasion. 
I can see that the Minister of Maori Affairs will certainly use the fact that five Treaty bills in one day is good for the Government. That is his prerogative and I congratulate the Government on the three that we have passed and the two that have completed their first readings. The National Party will support and has no problem supporting the passage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatau Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This settlement is a very exciting one for the Green Party as it provides a new mechanism for the real co-management of natural resources—in this case the Waikato River. Co-management if it is truly a partnership between iwi and others can demonstrate a major shift in trust between the Treaty partners. What we know is seriously lacking in the management of our natural resources is trust that Maori can and do manage natural resources exceptionally well. We know of hundreds of local examples of that in terms of both marine and terrestrial resources. But today we have a bill that lifts it to another level. 
Just recently as I have been travelling around this country to look at a lot of freshwater issues it has struck me time and again that the kaitiaki who have been looking after our freshwater resources have been local hapu. The Muaupoko people who have been fighting to protect Lake Horowhenua along with Ngati Raukawa have been struggling for decades to protect that beautiful lake. They have been the ones who time and again have stood up and fought to protect that lake against a whole series of other people who have not been there. We should have trust that hapu will protect those natural resources. 
Likewise just recently in the Hokianga when I was at Kokohuia Marae on the Hokianga harbour with Ngati Korokoro Te Pouka and Ngati Wharara we sat around and talked about the impacts that sewage was having on the beautiful Hokianga harbour. Those local hapu were doing their damnedest to protect that beautiful water resource and we should trust them to do their damnedest to protect our resources. That is why a co-management model is the way the Green Party thinks that we should go. It should be a co-management model whereby we stand alongside those people as they try to protect resources. 
This bill sets out a detailed structure with the primary aim of restoring the Waikato River to a healthy state. The structures are designed to be inclusive and to incorporate a range of other iwi councils at all levels the community and the Crown. That kind of iwi collaboration is a model that the Government should take particular note of. Exhibiting trust in iwi does not come naturally all the time to the Government as we know. 
But I also say there is a tremendous challenge for anyone whose goal is to clean up the Waikato River. The Waikato River is in a disgraceful state and that is the truth. The clarity of the water at the Huka Falls is such that one can see an object about 14 metres away. One can see an object 14 metres away through the water in Lake Taupo but by the time one gets to the last 50 kilometres of the Waikato River one can barely see an object one metre away. There the water is so full of sediment and algae and so heavily polluted that the visual clarity is very very low. 
I say to the people of Auckland that they have a particular interest in this bill. They may think that Waikato does not have much to do with Auckland but 10 percent of Auckland’s water comes out of the Waikato River. All the future expansion of the water supply for Auckland—drinking water for the people in Auckland—will come from the Waikato River. I have spent a number of hours with Watercare Services and discussed that very issue. Most of the water will come from the Waikato River. The people of Auckland will be dependent on this co-management model to protect their drinking water and they will be dependent on the iwi on those bodies to actually protect it. So I think that the people of Auckland should pay particular attention to this bill and thank the iwi that are standing up to protect this beautiful river. 
I also say that the challenges for the Waikato River are enormous. We have massive dairy conversions under way in its catchment right now. Hamilton is hopefully preparing to improve its sewerage services so that less nitrogen will end up in the Waikato River but all of that gain will be lost by conversions to dairying. Some of the giant dairy conversions will throw something like 750 tonnes of nitrogen a year into the Waikato River. So although we can say it is good that there are some improvements particularly around the discharge of sewage and hopefully there will be more to come we also know that the benefit of those improvements will be entirely wiped out by the dairy conversions that are under way in that catchment. If we do not put some controls around that process we will not achieve the objectives of this bill. The iwi objectives along with our objectives will not be achieved if we do not put a hold on the massive dairy conversions that are under way. 
We thank Lady Raiha Mahuta Tuku Morgan and everyone who took the time to talk with our spokesperson on Maori issues Metiria Turei who sends her apologies because she cannot be here today. We have a much better understanding of both the process that Tainui have gone through and the value of their success because of the time that was taken to talk to us. We know that this bill will not progress until after the general election but we very much look forward to hearing in more detail in future about the issues regarding the process. 
No doubt concerns about the settlement will be raised as well. The settlement process is one that does not truly honour the Treaty. It is one that takes from some people to give to others. It is one that picks winners and losers and expects everyone to be grateful. 
We acknowledge that the Crown and its representatives have breached and continue to breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We support the resolution of and payment of restitution for all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches. We continue to work for a process that truly achieves that. In the meantime we know that many many kuia and kaumatua have worked extremely hard to bring this settlement about and we respect their work. We give our best wishes to all of them. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I say to members “Tatou tatou—together together.” Courtesy is contagious and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders. There is far too much noise inside the Chamber. Would those who are having conversations that are not necessary in here please show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the House and go out to the lobbies. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker huri rauna tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Hei timatanga me mihi atu ki a koutou e Waikato-Tainui i haere tawhiti mai ki roto o Poneke ki te whakarongo ki te whakatakotoranga o tenei kaupapa ki mua i te aroaro o nga mema Paremata i tenei ra tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. A i tenei wa me mihi ano hoki ki a koe e te tuahine e Nanaia i te mea kua kite au i te hari i runga i to kanohi i tenei ra. Kua kite au i te wakatutukitanga o au nei mahi i roto i tenei Paremata. No reira mihi atu ki a koe i tenei ra whakahirahira e pa ana ki a koe i roto i a matou i tenei ra. Huri rauna ki a tatou katoa hakoa ko wai te iti me te rahi tena koutou huri rauna kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all throughout the House. As a means of beginning I acknowledge you Waikato-Tainui who travelled from a distance to Wellington to listen to this matter being placed before the members of Parliament today. Greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. I take this opportunity as well to extend a greeting to you fellow member of Parliament Nanaia because I see the happiness on your face today. I see the completion of your work also in this Parliament. Sso I acknowledge you on this great day relating to you and your work in particular amongst us. To all of us throughout whether of a minor or major party greetings to us all. 
] 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker for coming back to the House. This is the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill that reached our desk only a couple of hours ago so please excuse me if I do not say too much about the detail. Suffice to say though that the Maori Party recognises that this bill was born out of the denial of guardianship of the Waikato River to its people; anger at the desecration pollution and depletion of the awa; sadness at the use of the river as but a resource to be exploited; and despair at the pollution and depletion of the fisheries. We know there are those within Tainui who may still have doubts about co-ownership and co-management. We know they will look to the deed to see how their rangatiratanga has been recognised and included. We know this settlement will give impetus to others to also take up the challenge of negotiating their role on the river and we know too of the significant relationships that others have to the river and the concerns they will undoubtedly have about this settlement. 
But today is not just about recognising the tragedy of the past and the problems of the present. Today the Maori Party is proud to join with others in the House in acknowledging all of the peoples of Waikato-Tainui. We join in acknowledging te mana o te awa o Waikato—that special authority and prestige of the Waikato River which defines its people and itself through the saying: “Ko ahau ko te awa ko te awa ko ahau.” We join in acknowledging the timing of the signing of the deed of settlement on the second anniversary of the coronation of King Tuheitia; in acknowledging the many people who devoted all of their lives to enable us to reach this point today and in particular the legacy of Sir Robert Te Kotahi Mahuta who with the unwavering support of Te Atairangikaahu led the negotiations for the first major Treaty settlement with the Crown. We join in acknowledging all those who have passed on; so too do we acknowledge those who have taken up the challenge to protect the mana of the river and to guide future generations of its people under the careful direction of Tukoroirangi Morgan and Lady Raiha Mahuta. Today we also celebrate the multi-tribal 21st birthday party for Waikato-Tainui who along with Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and Te Roroa all took the initiative in 1987 to lodge claims with the Waitangi Tribunal and which have all appeared on today’s Order Paper thanks in great part to Dr Michael Cullen and all those other members of Parliament who have helped bring these bills to the House today. 
In considering this bill we acknowledge the Crown’s commitment to a 30-year—I hope I have this bit right—$200 million river clean-up programme. Is that correct? We acknowledge the guardians of the river who will be responsible for working with local authorities and iwi to oversee the vision and the strategy for cleaning up the river. We acknowledge the establishment of a board to ensure full participation by Waikato-Tainui in co-management of the river. We acknowledge the co-management arrangements dedicated to restoring and protecting the health and well-being of the awa; and managing the awa through good faith consensus decision-making and a bold partnership between Crown agencies and iwi. We congratulate Tuku and Lady Raiha on the diligent way in which Waikato-Tainui have approached the overall purpose of restoring and protecting the awa. In doing so might I just quote from the Indigenous Declaration on Water which was signed in Kyoto in 2003: “We recognize honor and respect water as sacred and sustains all life. Our traditional knowledge laws and ways of life teach us to be responsible in caring for this sacred gift that connects all life.” 
We congratulate Waikato-Tainui on the vision they have set for themselves as a people for themselves as their awa and for themselves as a community within the wider society. Hoi ano hei whakakapi i taku korero e Tuku e Raiha. I sincerely hope that the vision they have for a river that sustains life and prosperity through the caring and guidance of its whanau will set a benchmark for us all. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in the Maori Party when I say that we urge Waikato-Tainui to keep pushing forward so that other iwi might be guided by their actions and learn from whatever mistakes they have made and undoubtedly will continue to make in the future. We challenge them to bring the best that they have to this task so the whole country might learn from their bold initiatives. We wish them well in all that lies ahead of them. In closing we look forward to continuing this debate when the House returns in 2009. Hoi ano ka nui tera maku e te Kaiwhakawa huri rauna ki te Whare koutou e Waikato Tainui tatou katoa e nohonoho nei tena koutou tena koutou huri atu huri noa kia ora tatou katoa. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
Ka matakitaki iho au ki te riu o Waikato 
Ano nei he kapok au ake maku 
Ki te kapu o taku ringa 
Ka whakamiri noa i tona aratau 
E tia nei he tupu kua hou 
Ke hiwa ake ki te tihi o Pirongia 
Ina he toronga whakaruruhau mona 
Ki toku tauawhiritanga 
Ana! Te ngoto o tona ngawha i ona uma kihai i arikarika 
A Maungatautari a Maungakawa 
Oku puke maunga nga taonga tuku iho. 
Hoki ake nei au ki toku awa koiora me ona pikonga 
He kura tangihia o te matamuri 
E whakawhiti atu ai i te kopu mania o Kirikiriroa 
Me ona mara kai te ngawha whakatupu ake o te whenua momona 
Hei kawe ki Ngaruawahia te huinga o te tangata 
Ata te pae haumako hei okiokinga mo taku upoko 
Hei tirohanga atu ma raro i nga huha o Taupiri 
Kei reira ra kei te orokohanganga o te tangata 
Wahia te tungaroa o te whare te whakaputanga mo te Kingi. 
I look down on the valley of Waikato 
As though to hold it in the hollow of my hand 
And caress its beauty 
Like some tender verdant thing 
I reach out from the top of Pirongia 
As though to cover and protect its substance with my own 
See how it bursts through the full bosoms of Maungatautari and Maungakawa 
Hills of my inheritance 
The river of life each curve more beautiful than the last  
Across the smooth belly of Kirikiriroa 
Its gardens bursting with the fullness of good things. 
Towards the meeting place at Ngaruawahia 
There on the fertile mound I would rest my head and look through the thighs of Taupiri 
There at the place of all creation 
Let the King come forth. 
I preface my remarks with a maioha from Tawhiao with his reflections on his absolute reverence for his territory: its lands mountains sacred places and indeed the Waikato River which was then full of abundance. On reflection I am certainly mindful that his reign followed a period of severe trauma with the confiscation of 1.2 million hectares of land. Yet the hope and vision to see the restoration of what was lost became a powerful symbol of unity and purpose for the Kingitanga movement that has endured to this day. 
It is a privilege to be speaking in this House on the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I pay homage to those who have gone before us who carried the struggle of the raupatu—the unjust and illegal confiscation of Waikato lands and resources—in search of redress. In particular I acknowledge the leadership of Te Atairangikaahu and Te Kotahi Mahuta who like Te Puea before them weathered the brunt of the vision to move the people beyond grievance and towards reconciliation. So too do I acknowledge the former members of the Tainui Maori Trust Board and Nga Marae Topu who lodged the initial Wai 30 claim in 1987. That leadership was put to the test in the public and more private aspects of their lives. Their decisiveness and determination certainly made this path an easier one to follow. There have been ups and downs but just as the proverb says a lot of water has gone under the bridge. Time has played its part. 
We are now moving forward on one of the four recognised outstanding claims linked to the earlier 1995 Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act which I might add was assented to by Queen Elizabeth II in person. In that regard an explicit statement on the river is included in the deed of settlement where the Crown acknowledges that its invasion of the Waikato in 1863 was by land and by the Waikato River which was a double blow to Waikato-Tainui as by the raupatu the Crown assumed authority over both the land and the river. The effect of recognition of this fact is twofold. It reinforces a travesty of our colonial history and it legitimates the purpose and authority of the Kingitanga which has acted as a beacon for the aspirations of “te mana motuhake o te iwi Maori”. It is within this context that the approach taken by the previous and current negotiators can be understood. It gives insight to the significance of the Kiingitanga Accord contained in the bill. 
First there is recognition that the Waikato River is an indivisible entity. Its waters its banks its riverbed its fisheries vegetation and life source are component parts of the whole. That recognition of “mana o te awa” extends from Te Hukahuka near Taupo to Te Puaha o Waikato. That mana is reflected by a korowai that seeks to protect and restore the health and well-being of the river. The aphorism “Ko Waikato te awa ko Te Wherowhero te tangata he piko he taniwha he piko he taniwha” [ 
Waikato is the river Te Wherowhero is the man at every bend a chief 
] holds true to this day and it is expressed in the recognition that all iwi along the reaches of the river have an interest and role to play for the long term. I acknowledge Tuwharetoa Te Arawa the people at Pouakani Raukawa and Maniapoto who alongside the peoples of Waikato have supported this intent and in time hope to see its full fruition. The Guardians of the Waikato River and the vision and strategy deployed by them are key. I hope the Maori Affairs Committee will give some thought to ensuring that the legislative mechanisms are able to achieve consistency across other legislation impinging on the current and future management of the river. 
Second the bill provides for a co-management approach to rekindle the aspirations of Waikato to retain and continue a hands-on relationship in order to clean up the river and its tributaries and to contribute to decision making that impacts on the river. One would hope that the instruments used to strengthen co-management practices will in time see a greater willingness to use existing mechanisms such as sections 33 and 34 of the Resource Management Act. I am mindful that best practice and new technology should aid Waikato to improve the health and well-being of the river. However we should expect further regulatory mechanisms to accelerate that effort and I look forward to the future work of the statutory board. 
The settlement and its legislation will transform New Zealanders’ approach to achieving the goals of sustainability of our waterways alongside Maori. At a practical level back home where it really matters the benefits are intended to be for example greater protection and sustainable management of whitebait and fisheries interests in Te Puaha o Waikato; regeneration and preservation of eel resources in the Waikato catchment; bank stabilisation and flood protection of tributaries and along the Waikato; improved monitoring of water quality the setting of water allocation and ecological flows; support for science and matauranga Maori research to improve land-based practices especially in the agricultural sector; encouragement for marae to become involved in local projects to enhance the health and well-being of the river that will potentially create employment opportunities; and that our young people utilise this action as a learning model to broaden their experience and career choices. These are but some of the practical benefits. 
I expect that the select committee may be tasked with considering issues of mandate. It may also be asked to consider the recognition of interests in the upper catchment that are not captured in this bill or in those of other iwi. I am confident as the local MP of Tainui that the process undertaken to get to this point is robust. The detail of it can be explored at the select committee. As the local MP and the Minister of Local Government I am particularly pleased that both central government and local government are locked into this agreement alongside Waikato-Tainui. Everyone has a part to play. In no way do I underestimate the magnitude of this task. I expect ebbs flows and torrential currents along the way. Our major focus however must be an outcome beyond our generation and for everyone’s benefit. I know that Waikato-Tainui are not going anywhere and that is the extent of their commitment. 
I want to thank Dr Michael Cullen who has shown personal commitment to this and other Treaty settlements to ensure that Maori can walk confidently into the future. I thank both Ministers Horomia and Ririnui for their support and I also thank Maori members across the House for their support. I hope that the bill in both its first and third readings will pass unanimously. 
Finally I recognise the tenacity and conviction of the principal negotiators Raiha Mahuta and Tuku Morgan; and their negotiating team led by Denese Henare Shane Solomon and Donna Flavell; and the kaumatua who have walked with them to achieve this outcome. Like the raupatu settlement the real gains of this river settlement will be realised only in hindsight. A great deal has been achieved and there will be more to do! I am proud that a Labour-led Government is prepared to move into new territory through this settlement. 
Can I end with the words of the late Te Kotahi Mahuta. To put them in context in 1999 when Doug Graham gave a speech “Treaty Negotiations in New Zealand” he made the point that the Government did not accept that Maori had an interest in rivers and lakes akin to ownership. To that the late Te Kotahi Mahuta said: “We are not concerned about ownership of the River but rather its present and future health … Everyone seems to have abdicated responsibility for ensuring the health of the River and thus this is the main thrust of the claim. The sole and principal beneficiary of the claim must be the River. … Our principal objective is to clean up the river from the Huka falls down to Port Waikato so that its health might be restored to enable all people to enjoy the fishing recreational and other activities associated with the Waikato River.” 
No reira kati ra koi nei nga whakaaro mo toku awa koiora. Pai Marire. 
[ 
So enough; these then are thoughts relating to my river that lives. Goodness and peace. 
] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am conscious of the time but I want to emphasise on behalf of the National Party that we will be supporting the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. The process of reconciliation with Tainui was started by National in the 1990s with Sir Douglas Graham and Sir Robert Mahuta and this led to the very first settlement—the Waikato Raupatu settlement—in May 1995. In that settlement certain claims were excluded and were to be dealt with later and this was one of them. The other two relate to the west coast harbours and to what may loosely be called the Auckland lands beyond the river to the north. 
It is appropriate to acknowledge the huge contribution made to New Zealand by Sir Robert Mahuta. I know from discussions I have had with Sir Douglas Graham how much Sir Douglas enjoyed working with Sir Robert in the 1990s. I also acknowledge the work of Lady Mahuta and Tuku Morgan. I think that Tainui’s consultation with my party has been excellent. They have kept us fully abreast of all developments and I thank them for that. 
It is almost completely unnecessary to emphasise the importance of the Waikato River to Tainui and to the Waikato. This importance is referred to in the deed of settlement and in the legislation and is comprehensively set out in the preamble. Over the years there has been increased pollution and degradation of the river and that has been a cause of great distress to the people of Tainui. That is why looking ahead so much emphasis is placed on co-management to ensure that the river can be restored. Now there is an opportunity for the guardians the local authorities and the Crown to take up the responsibility for ensuring that the river is healthy for future generations. That is good for Tainui good for the region and good for the community. 
The bill proposes the establishment of a statutory body called the Guardians of the Waikato River to restore and protect the health and well-being of the river for future generations and to implement a vision and a strategy to achieve a coordinated approach to the management of the river. The Guardians Establishment Committee was formed in March 2008 to develop the vision and strategy for the river. The committee conducted public consultations on the draft vision and strategy before amending it and recommending it to the Crown and to Waikato-Tainui. 
The bill once enacted will establish the statutory board. The principal functions of the board are to assist and support Waikato-Tainui in the exercise of their mana whakahaere over the river and to support and promote the special relationship of Tainui with the river in order to achieve the implementation of the vision and the strategy and to ensure compliance with it. The board will facilitate the effective co-management of the river through interaction with the Crown local authorities and other interested stakeholders. The board will also evaluate at least every 10 years relevant policies and plans relating to the river and activities in the catchment that affect the river. In the early development of the package all relevant local authorities in the region were consulted in the development of the board. 
This is very interesting legislation and my friend Mr Henare is correct when he calls it unique. This looks to be an innovative settlement and overall a very good one. There are however a few issues that the Maori Affairs Committee will need to look at closely. The first of these relates to the Kiingitanga Accord which is the collateral deed between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui dated 22 August 2008. This accord forms part of the overall settlement and its integration will likely see the introduction of a number of Supplementary Order Papers which means that the House as yet does not know the full details of what will be passed into law. When considering this settlement bill the select committee will also need to pay close attention to the interests of other iwi and hapu within the region to ensure that the interests of all parties are safeguarded. 
National congratulates all interested parties on their achievements to date. As I said we will support this bill. We look forward to hearing submissions and working with other parties at the select committee. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Waiata 
Obituaries 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to report some sad news to the House and that is the passing of the Hon Brian Donnelly at 2.20 p.m. today. The Hon Brian Donnelly was born in Auckland in November 1949. He was educated at Sacred Heart College Auckland to which he won a scholarship. He attended Auckland University and Massey University gaining a Bachelor of Arts a Bachelor of Education a Master of Educational Administration a Diploma in Teaching and a Diploma in Second Language Teaching. 
He worked in the education field for 25 years before he came to Parliament. His teaching career included teaching in primary secondary area and intermediate schools and also being the deputy principal of Titikaveka College in Rarotonga from 1977 to 1980. He was principal of Whangarei Intermediate School from 1990 to 1996. He was a part-time lecturer at the Auckland College of Education where he taught papers in Advanced Studies for Teachers and the Diploma in Educational Management. He also tutored university papers at both Auckland and Massey universities. In 1978 he was awarded the A H and A W Reed prize for Pacific History. He also worked for the Education Review Office for 10 months in 1990. 
Those who remember Brian will know that he was a very active sportsman. In rugby league he represented Auckland Northland the New Zealand Universities and the New Zealand Colts and he was a Kiwi trialist on several occasions. He assisted in the introduction of rugby league to the Cook Islands was responsible for the inaugural inter-school competition in Auckland and has managed both Northland and New Zealand university teams. He also represented the Cook Islands in rugby union. 
Brian Donnelly entered politics in 1993 standing for New Zealand First in the Whangarei electorate and he came within a few hundred votes of victory. He was appointed Minister responsible for the Education Review Office and Associate Minister of Education following the formation of the New Zealand First - National coalition Government in December 1996. He was a superb Minister of Education. 
During his time here Brian’s goal was to be an advocate for the people of Northland for teachers for children and for worthy causes. He ended his career as the High Commissioner to the Cook Islands where he was appointed earlier this year. I might just share something with members. He said to me: “Can I be appointed after the election?” and I said: “Brian I don’t think it quite works that way. Perhaps you should take up the appointment now.” And I am glad he did. 
Brian was married to Linda for many many years and their three children are Theresa who is a qualified lawyer and of course Ioane and Erena. 
Brian Donnelly was a man of enormous integrity and character. He was a superb member of caucus a loyal member of this Parliament and a very worthy parliamentarian. I am certain I can say that across the divide of politics he had friends everywhere who respected him and he respected them. He was despite his academic bent a very good Kiwi man who respected women ideas and values. I know it is common on such occasions for people to use all manner of grand words regarding a personality but on this particular occasion I think those words have a special significance. So I pass on our condolences sincere and heartfelt to Linda and her children for a life wonderfully spent. 
Waiata 
Valedictory Statements 
MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I just indicate to the House that my retiring colleagues or my departing colleagues have indicated a desire that congratulations should occur at the collective end of their valedictory speeches rather than between each one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Before I begin my comments can I follow on from the comments of Winston Peters and say a few words about Brian Donnelly. The words Mr Peters used are I think very appropriate today. I do not think there is anybody in this House who met Brian Donnelly and did not become a friend of his. I met him when he was in the position of Associate Minister of Education and through the time I was here he talked with me often about education and we shared a passion for that. I am sure that all members in the House found something that they would have talked about with Brian during that time and today members will be thinking of him his family and his close friends in New Zealand First. Our thoughts are with them. 
Madam Speaker can I acknowledge you and thank you for your friendship over many years. I know that you too are leaving Parliament and I hope we can continue our habit of occasionally discussing issues of the day over a meal in a well-chosen restaurant. I say thanks also for the opportunity to address the House and I wish my colleagues who are doing the same all the best for their respective futures. 
Like many parliamentarians I am from a working family. My father who is now 96 years old came to New Zealand from Glasgow as a young boy to work for his father. I cannot disclose the age of my mother but her family also migrated from Scotland and settled in Dunedin. My talented colleague Lianne Dalziel and I are cousins twice removed because our grandmothers were sisters in Dunedin. Like Mr Key I am a State house boy yet I am here saying farewell after 18 years in New Zealand’s Parliament. That I am able to tell that story says a great deal about what is good about this nation. Fairness and equal opportunity have long been part of the New Zealand political tradition and it led to Governments putting in place institutions that made a practical difference to people like me. 
Like most parents mine—whose love and unflinching support I want to recognise here today—did not have the personal resources to present me with all the opportunities I have enjoyed during my life; only the community working together could do that. That is why I have been profoundly influenced by the 1949 Clarence Beeby Peter Fraser quote which to paraphrase says: “No matter our background or circumstances we have the right as citizens to go as far as our potential will take us.” and so that this is not just a pious hope the community has to make that possible. I had the good fortune to be born into a society where people were prepared to work hard to ensure that that hope was fulfilled. 
I do not want to idealise the New Zealand of my youth because there was a lot wrong with it and I have spent a lot of my life arguing for change. But the good fortune I have enjoyed has made me see politics as a noble calling and government is able to have a positive influence on the lives of citizens. It was the move away from this kind of thinking in the 1980s that encouraged me towards elected politics first as a city councillor and then into Parliament following the colourful Trevor de Cleene whom many people here will remember as the MP for the wonderful city of Palmerston North. 
I do not claim that everything done under the banner of Rogernomics was wrong. Like many of my generation I wanted to see a more open diverse and modern society but an overemphasis on the market as the solution to everything led to economic underperformance social breakdown and personal isolation for vulnerable people. Yes there were success stories and they were often held up as proof that policies were working. But celebrations of personal triumph are no substitute for the kind of collective progress that makes a difference to the lives of all New Zealanders. 
In 1990 I had my chance to contribute to a change of direction in New Zealand politics when I joined Parliament. I note as an aside that I watched with awe the confident and assured way in which Dr Russel Norman introduced himself to the House recently. In contrast my first time in the Chamber standing about where Dr Norman is sitting with my friend Paul Swain was a little different. I remember nervously and in an excited way watching around the Chamber as the man who became known as the “Great Helmsman” moved around the floor welcoming people to the Parliament. I said to myself the way one does when one is tired: “That’s Jim Bolger.” This was at just about the same time as he said: “Hello. Who are you?” and I said: “I’m Jim Bolger.” He said: “No you’re not. I am.” We have had quite a good relationship since then—sort of twins really. 
In my maiden speech to Parliament I took up the theme mentioned earlier arguing that it was time to achieve a better balance between the roles of the State and the market. I went on to explain that like all societies we were on the edge of such an enormous amount of change; we were confronting new times. Only if we harnessed the strengths of the market and the State would we be able to respond in a way that would mean New Zealanders would benefit. I suggested borrowing from Neil Kinnock the quote: “There is a limit to what the modern State can and should do but there is no limit to what it can enable people to do for themselves.” I talked about a new agenda for training for education for research technology; investing in infrastructure; a high-value high-skills high-wage economy; full employment; advancing the interests of women; people with disabilities; acknowledging tangata whenua; becoming a culturally diverse society; strengthening public services; and developing an environmentally sustainable future. 
Beginning in 1991 with what was known as the Labour Listens campaign I had 9 long years to think about how to advance that kind of thinking in practice. Labour policies were greatly influenced during that time by what became known as the third way. No one talks about this alternative much any more not because it is of no use but because I would argue we are all to an extent third-wayers now. We agree that the old ideologies have declining relevance and that issues like globalisation changes in family life and our relationship with the environment have dramatically changed the political agenda. The necessary relationship between the State and the market and civil society is accepted. We all accept the mixed economy. We all want to invest in the solutions to social problems. If the centre of politics in the 1980s and 1990s was the market I am delighted to say it is only part of the centre today. 
In 1999 Labour was able to form a Government. After 9 years of playing the understudy the prospect of governing seemed like a simple transition. Let me warn new players that it is not. The jobs of an Opposition spokesperson and a Government Minister are very very different. In the MMP era there is a period of calm and then coalitions are formed and the world explodes. The expectations on Labour in 1999 added to that pressure and I felt at the time like I had just stepped on to a train that was leaving a station. It picked up speed and it did not often seem to slow down. 
Driving that train was someone who I thought would be one of New Zealand’s great Prime Ministers—I believe that it is now beyond doubt. Helen Clark it has been an absolute privilege to serve with you. Stoking the fires was the wonderfully talented and acerbic Dr Michael Cullen. At the end of my maiden speech in 1990 Michael came over and said that it was good to see another radical communitarian in the House. I think I am probably the only one in the House who would take that as a compliment. In the guard’s van was Jim Anderton. I have always had the greatest admiration for Jim even when I was the target of his fierce denunciations of Labour in the House during the 1990s. Jim has a very loud voice and one can feel very very crushed by it when he gets rolling. But it has been an honour to share a bench with a man whose commitment to the values of social justice has never ever wavered. 
In the carriages if I can draw out the metaphor a little more were the rest of the team. During my 18 years I have worked with wonderful colleagues and I want to thank them for sharing the good times and hanging together during the tough times. The “Backbench Seven” as they were called came in in 1990. Wonderful characters like David Lange David Caygill and Heather Simpson who until recently I thought was an MP were here already. Then there were the people who came in from subsequent elections—people like Ruth Dyson Mark Gosche Mark Burton Parekura Horomia—and Annette King and Trevor Mallard who were known as retreads for a little while. Ashraf Choudhary is the first person of a new-settler community to come into this House along with Pansy Wong and is changing the face of politics literally. I think he has done a wonderful job and so has Pansy. Darren Hughes who is one of the funniest people in Parliament has been a great friend to me. Shane Jones—I could go on with person after person and forgive me that I will not go through all of you. You have been wonderful colleagues to be with. 
It is said that one does not make friends in politics. Well one does. Those people are friends to me. Some members on the other side of the House are friends as well. I hope that it does not ruin his career but I would like to acknowledge my friend Simon Power who is likely to be possibly maybe my local MP after the election. I have enjoyed the company of many other people around this House. Eric Roy and I spent a wonderful night in Queensland discovering that he was a Renaissance man if ever I saw one. I would like to acknowledge Rod Donald who I thought was a wonderful colleague and certainly a very kind person to me. 
But it is a challenge to maintain friendships because of the all-encompassing nature of our job. Politics is not a job actually; it is a lifestyle. There is always more than one thing to do and we are surrounded by staff and officials. On Monday mornings if one is a Minister one joins colleagues to talk informally about the issues facing the country before going to that special place on the 10th floor. It is a bit like the TARDIS up there. One arrives there and makes decisions. On Tuesdays Wednesdays and Thursdays one comes to the House and answers questions in the full glare of the Opposition and the media. I loved it; it was heady stuff. But there is always something that brings one down to earth. 
I remember going as the Minister of Education to a Mission-On launch with Tana Umaga. The kids had lined up—hundreds of them—to welcome him into the school. I tagged alongside Tana saying hi to the kids. One of the boys finished with Tana and he turned to me and said; “Who are you?”. I was about to say: “Well you know I’m the Minister of Education.” when he asked: “Are you Tana’s hairdresser?”. So I paused for a moment and I thought: “Which is the best option?”. I said: “I’m the hairdresser.” One of the great pleasures of this job is that we do meet wonderful people like Tana and I would like to acknowledge all the other wonderful people I have met around this country. This is a great nation and we meet superb people everywhere we go. 
I also want to record my thanks to my staff in Palmerston North in Bowen House and in the Beehive. We will have a chance to say more to each other later on but if you do not mind I will single out one person to represent you all and that is Kathleen Lambert who was my secretary while I was a Minister. She taught me to swear and she saw me through my time as Minister. No I already knew it Kathleen; I just grew a little! I have worked with truly committed public servants some of whom are here today and I want to thank them for what they do for New Zealand. But I must point out in case anyone is wondering that I am not including Christine Rankin in that list. 
I say to the people of Palmerston North thank you for your support. I say to the media that I know you believe in the importance of the fourth estate and I want you to know I do too and it has been strengthened by meeting you—it has been strengthened by that process. To the staff of Parliament I say thank you for taking care of me. I thank the talented committed Labour staff—the research unit deserves special attention—and my friends some of whom are here today. 
I said during my maiden speech that politicians made very poor friends and that is still true but you have been wonderful friends. To my family you have always been there for me; thank you. To Elizabeth Rose McKay whom I meet in 1982 and married 6 years later and who died of cancer on 19 March 2004 I say that if I have achieved anything in this Parliament Elizabeth you made that possible. If she was here today she would no doubt say in that very straightforward way of hers: “Well done but there’s a little more to do.” and there is. 
The last three Labour-led Governments have made a very positive difference to the lives of New Zealanders. In my city of Palmerston North the contrast between the way things were and the way things are is stark. Like most regions the Manawatu was in decline. I recall 1600 manufacturing jobs leaving the region in 1 year. People wondered whether there was a future. Since 1999 there has been economic growth jobs fewer people on benefits rising house prices and most important a sense of confidence in the region. We can face the current economic problems with some confidence because as Dr Brash noted recently the economy is fundamentally sound. So what next? As we are all third-wayers of one kind or another a focus on building a dynamic market economy and quality public services remains. I would emphasise as members might expect the need for universities and research to be given a whole lot more money! 
Let me list five other challenges. The first challenge is the democracy challenge. We do not need a referendum on MMP but the political process should be constantly reformed to ensure the meaningful involvement of the New Zealand people in decision making. New communications technology offers the best opportunity yet to include as many people as possible and it should be taken. Second I mention the poverty challenge. We should aim to eliminate poverty through a combination of redistribution lifting the level of benefits and tough-minded policies that are designed to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots. I note in particular the need for universal early intervention programmes from 1 year prior to birth to 5 years after. 
The third challenge is the nation-building challenge. New Zealand in the 21st century is the home of many different communities. We need to consciously lay the foundations for a diverse autonomous Pacific nation that is unified by a sense of what we have in common. We need a written constitution and a timetable for when we will become a republic. That is not a criticism of our past; it is a recognition of what we have become. Fourth is the Green challenge. Climate change and global warming have made the environment a concern to us all but we do need to move beyond the debate about what we cannot do to one about what we can do. We need to show how a prosperous and growing nation can also be sustainable and that requires innovation not regulation to be at the front of our minds. 
The fifth challenge is the family challenge—appropriately. New Zealand should be proudly family friendly. Families in all their forms are the building blocks of our nation. We need to organise our society so the needs of families and children are central. It is time for example to look again at the organisation of work—flexible hours job sharing time banking 4-day weeks 9-day fortnights and more parental leave. Space must be created for families. Members will have their own goals. Make them bold. The mistakes of the 1980s and 1990s have left a legacy of understandable caution in politics. The current economic crisis reinforces this stance. But in the midst of new times the spectre of the past should not be allowed to get in the way of a vision for the future. 
If I may I will talk to the media for a moment. Exploring these choices requires a different kind of public conversation; one where politicians—and others—feel able to participate in a dialogue that will lead to real change instead of being forced to watch every word they say or being driven to release the next 3-point plan or new initiative to feed a 24-hour cycle of news and entertainment. Now despite leaving I remain very cautious when it comes to telling the media what to do because as Mark Twain once said: “Speaking of the media it is not wise to pick a fight with someone who orders their ink by the truckload.” which means it is time to say goodbye. 
I have been in Parliament for 18 years and in local politics for 3 years and I have decided it is time to move on to make way for the next MP for Palmerston North; a young man who I think will make a real contribution to his city and to his country: Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. Politicians who have crossed over to the other side tell me there is life after politics and I notice four of them here: Mr Jonathan Hunt who I think was a wonderful Speaker of this House and a wonderful friend to me when I originally came into the House; Jill White who was the member for Rangitikei and the Mayor of Palmerston North who is a wonderful friend to me; Graham Kelly who is not only one of the best jazz musicians in the House but a wonderful man; and Judy Keall who lived just up the road. Judy and I did some wonderful things—they were all seemly—along our electorate boundaries in the past. They show that there is life after politics and because I have been peeking I know there is. 
There is one person in particular who has made me believe there is new life after politics and that is my partner Bette Flagler. Bette gave me this gold watch yesterday. She said: “No one else is going to give you a gold watch so here it is.” Have members got the hammer! No I will not do that. Betty’s enthusiasm for life is infectious and she has made me optimistic about the future. Together we are setting out to meet new challenges. We are building an environmentally sustainable house and I am joining Massey University in the immediate future. Universities by the way are charged under legislation to be the critique and conscience of society so you may be hearing from me! 
My life is very complex I have to say. Let us call it being a grandfather. In the last 3 years Liam Felicity Olivia and just 3 weeks ago Izak—spelt I-Z-A-K; hmm—have been born. Last Christmas Bette and I invited the babies to bring their parents to the beach for what we hope will be the first of many happy summers. Judge Mick Brown whom I admire greatly once said: “The best things we can give children are great memories.” and that is what we want the babies to have. They do not know much about politicians. I say to members that they do not know you but I want you to know that they are reliant on what you do to make it possible for them to reach their potential in the world they will grow up in. That is a lot of responsibility on your shoulders but I will know you will wear it well. 
Goodbye; it has been a great privilege to be here. Thank you to the people of New Zealand for having me and in the words of John Lennon I hope I passed the audition. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 A tihei mauri ora. E te Whare e tu nei tena koe. Te ropu nei tena koe. Nga mate Brian Donnelly e hoa haere haere haere ki te wa kainga. Apiti hono tatai hono ko te hunga mate ki a ratou tatou te hunga ora ki a tatou no reira tena koutou tena koutou kia ora ano tatou katoa. 
[ 
Behold the sneeze of life. To the House standing before me greetings to you. To this gathering greetings to you. To the dead in particular to you Brian Donnelly the friend farewell farewell and depart to the homeland. Hail the bonds that bind the dead to the dead and us the living to each other; so greetings to you greetings to you and greetings once again to all of us 
].  
Eighteen years ago—last century in fact—I walked through the Noes lobby with my good friend Steve Maharey at the start of the new parliamentary term. We had just come from a caucus that had been decimated by Rogernomics. Mike Moore the then leader had advised us that the TV cameras were coming to film the caucus and that we were to lounge across empty seats to make ourselves look bigger. That night on TV we looked a small slovenly and bedraggled lot. 
I recall that John Banks was particularly cock-a-hoop at National’s victory. “Banksie” delighted in deliberately getting people’s names wrong. I was “Paul Swain from Eastern Hutt” and Steve was “Maharey from Palmerston North”. “Banksie” sneeringly referred to us collectively as “Swan from Manawatu”. Many years later as the Minister of Transport I received advice from John who was then the Mayor of Auckland. After learning that the Government was negotiating with the Green Party on transport “Banksie” reminded me of his Auckland saying: “Dreadlocks mean gridlocks.” 
I have reread my maiden speech a pastime for retiring MPs. It is a brilliant visionary piece of work and I cannot understand why it is not compulsory reading for all stage I political students. 
My first electorate case involved a constituent’s son who had been thrown into a dark British dungeon for strangling a goose in Hyde Park. With the help of Don McKinnon the Minister of Foreign Affairs I managed to arrange for the distraught mother to talk to her incarcerated son. That episode taught me two things: first do not strangle geese in Hyde Park and second although we have our rows and differences in this place—and I have loved every minute of them—Parliament does work together on occasions for the common good. 
It has been a great privilege and honour to represent the people of Eastern Hutt from 1990 to 1996 and Rimutaka from 1996 until now. I have been involved in many great local issues and I have worked with many great people. I particularly pay a tribute to the unsung heroes in our community the members of local organisations such as service groups sports clubs churches school boards and the like whose work is the heart and soul of any local community. I salute them for that work. I hope that Chris Hipkins the Labour candidate for Rimutaka is given the opportunity to continue the work that I have enjoyed so much. 
During our 9 long years in Opposition we developed our plans for what we would do in Government. The Labour-led Government won in 1999 and we hit the ground running. I was privileged to be elected to Cabinet. I had often seen old photos of serious-looking men half-turned to the camera in the Cabinet room and I am proud that I am now in a photo like that. 
My achievements and successes as a member of Parliament and a Minister are far too many to detail here. Suffice it to say they will be fulsomely described in my CV. However I did have an auspicious start to many of my portfolios. I had been the Minister for Information Technology for only a week or so responsible for the Y2K issue when I became seriously ill and ended up in Hutt Hospital attached to every computerised machine the staff could lay their hands on. At 2 minutes to midnight on New Year’s Eve I hazily remembered an officials’ report saying that Y2K should not be a problem with computers in the public sector generally but that there were major concerns about hospitals. As the clock struck 12 I braced myself to meet my maker. At 1 minute past 12 finding myself still alive I congratulated myself on a job thoroughly well done. 
I had been the Minister of Transport for only a couple of weeks when bits of Air New Zealand planes fell off and landed in South Auckland. I was disturbed to hear from an official that the bits were probably not important anyway. 
I had been the Minister of Corrections for only a short time when I was advised that two skinny inmates had escaped from a Department of Corrections bus on the way to Rimutaka Prison. The fact that they had escaped in my electorate and not Trevor Mallard’s electorate of Hutt South was infuriating. I asked how much the retrofitted bus had cost to keep the prisoners locked inside. “Around $350000.” I was told. I mused that it would be cheaper for the department to lease ordinary Stagecoach buses so that when prisoners wanted to exit they could pull the cord like everyone else. That was early on in my reign as Minister of Corrections when I still had a sense of humour. 
My most heroic comment came early on as the Minister of Commerce. When asked by a reporter whether I agreed that the New Zealand sharemarket was the Wild West I replied: “Yes but the sheriff’s coming to town.” 
The most influential thing I did as a Minister was as the Minister of Immigration. As a result of a “misunderstanding” with a reporter a  
New Zealand Herald 
 headline screamed “Government lifts migrant target to 50000” which saw Fletcher Building shares rise on that day. I was extremely grateful to receive a phone call from the Prime Minister on that morning offering me advice guidance and detailed information on the Government’s immigration programme. 
Notwithstanding that I feel privileged to have been part of the Labour team which has made a difference to the lives of ordinary people. I am pleased that the unfettered free-market ideology and its scant regard for social dislocation has been buried hopefully forever. It is ironic that the high priests of that religion who have preached deregulation and minimalist Government for years are strangely silent now as their cronies in the United States are bailed out from their greed incompetence and dishonesty by hard-working ordinary taxpayers. 
I am pleased that we in New Zealand have adopted a modern approach to economic management that sees the Government working in partnership with various sectors organisations groups and individuals to improve the potential of our nation. We New Zealanders have a much stronger sense of pride in who we are now which has been helped by success in film design science music and sport and under the leadership of Prime Minister Helen Clark New Zealand has become a strong independent nation that shows leadership on issues such as war poverty and climate change. Most important however I am proud to have been part of the Labour team that has made sure that the rising tide would lift all boats—that improved national wealth would be shared by the many not just the few. 
We have done well here but of course there is always more to do. A key issue I would like Parliament to become more engaged in is the work being led by Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions on improving workplace productivity. I was involved in this work as the Minister of Labour and it seems that much of the focus on monetary policy interest rates exchange rates and the like could be reduced if productivity improvement had a more important place on the economic agenda. 
I have been party to many important changes over the years with the most significant being the introduction of MMP in 1996. I supported a change to a more proportional system of Government and when I look around the Chamber I am pleased that we are starting to better reflect the wider community that we are supposed to represent. Although the decision-making process is slower on some things—often frustratingly so for a Minister—it is important to remember that that is what the public wanted: more considered decision-making. The coalition and support party arrangements have matured significantly over the years and the fact that this Government has honoured the 3-year contract with the people is a tribute to all the parties involved. 
There have been many hilarious moments in and around this place far too many to mention and I will try to mention just a few. The best comment from a constituent came from a person in John Carter’s Northland electorate. We were playing for the Parliamentary Rugby Team in a paddock in Awanui north of Kaitaia raising money for school cricket. The ball was thrown in on our 22. Chris Laidlaw passed it to John Carter the local MP who shaped to kick. “Don’t kick it Carter!” shrieked Chris sensing danger. John kicked it came off the side of his boot and it landed in the outstretched arms of the opposing man-mountain of a centre. With three of us hanging off him like leaves in the breeze the centre crashed over for a try under the sticks. “I told you not to kick it Carter!” moaned Laidlaw. “Don’t worry.” came a voice from an elderly constituent on the sideline “He doesn’t listen to us either.” Duncan Garner got his nickname “Scoop” on that trip given that he missed the National Party leadership change that happened right under his nose on that weekend. 
The best point of order came from Winston Peters. Members will know that it is unparliamentary to call someone a hypocrite. Winston who had become agitated by a speech took a point of order sought leave to table the  
Oxford Dictionary 
 and asked members to look up the meaning of the word “hypocrite” and compare the definition with what the member was saying. 
The best interjection on one of my speeches came from Michael Cullen. We had taken great delight in Opposition in reminding the National Government of its “Read my lips: no new taxes” promise. I had collected up anything that looked like a tax increase—accident compensation levies excise duties rates rises bus fare increases; anything at all—and gathering up every inch of constitutional outrage I could muster I shrieked: “See National promised no new taxes but in fact they have introduced nine new taxes.” “They must have been speaking German.” came the dry interjection from Michael Cullen. 
And the best answer to a parliamentary question came from my great friend Parekura Horomia. The prime question that was asked was innocent enough: “What did the Minister think of such and such?”. Parekura indicated enthusiastic support. “How does he reconcile that answer with a letter signed by him a month ago stating the exact opposite?” asked the questioner. We all drew breath knowing that this was the question that we as Ministers all dreaded. “That is easy.” said Parekura “It was a pre-letter.” The House went quiet as everyone pondered the answer and one of ours stood to ask the next question. By this stage pandemonium had broken out on the Opposition front benches as its members realised that this was not an answer at all. A point of order was taken and an answer demanded but the Speaker the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt advised that it was too late as he had called the next question. To this day it is unclear what a “pre-letter” is. 
There are far too many people to thank but I have chosen a few. I say thank you to our Prime Minister Helen Clark for her leadership courage compassion and humour over the years. Her support for me when I was unwell certainly helped my rehabilitation. I am pleased to learn that she is only midway through her career and I sincerely hope that she will be able to continue the great work she has overseen over the last 9 years. 
To the Mayor of Upper Hutt City Wayne Guppy and his wife Sue who have been good friends to my wife Toni and I I say thank you. Wayne is one of the top mayors in the country and a top bloke. He has vision is a strong leader and genuinely cares about the people of Upper Hutt. It has been great working with him on all the issues over the years. I will particularly miss our All Black selections often ignored by the hierarchy and the annual battle on the Upper Hutt bowling greens and I am pleased to note that I am going out on a high. 
To my dear friend Paul Tolich I say “Thanks mate!”. Tolly has stood by me through thick and thin over the years particularly when it was being alleged that the party was mysteriously moving to my left. The union movement and the Labour Party are the stronger for Tolly’s dedication and commitment. 
To all those who work in Parliament—receptionists messengers Hansard reporters select committee staff Crown car drivers security guards Bellamy’s staff—I say thank you. To all the board members chief executives and public servants who serve New Zealand so ably and professionally I say thank you for their contribution. To my ministerial parliamentary and electorate staff and in particular to Jan Paterson Ida Simons Janette Granville Krisna Crowley-Nepia and Rebecca Leahy I say thank you for their advice help and friendship. And I say thank you to those in my local Labour electorate committee for their loyalty hard work and support over all these years. 
To my family—my late father who has organised a heavenly chapter of Grey Power to make sure the superannuation surcharge never comes back; my mother who has defended my honour on late-night talkback shows; and my brother and sisters who have had to put up with ribbing from friends following some of my pronouncements—I thank them all for their support. 
I come now to my children. To my sons Ben and Sam who are both overseas I say that I am incredibly proud of them both. I am proud of who they are and of what they have achieved. And to my darling daughters Maddie and Emily who are here today I say that they keep me young and bring me never-ending joy and happiness. 
The best thing that has happened to me in Parliament was meeting falling in love with and marrying my wife Toni. She has been my rock my calm confidante my best friend and my media adviser over the last 8 years. I look forward to spending more time with her from now on and to sharing life’s adventures whatever they may be. 
As Ruth Dyson is wont to say finally and in conclusion I now prepare to leave this place. As a former Minister of Corrections I understand how inmates feel at the end of their time—I am looking forward to personal freedom and hoping I can survive outside the institution. 
At some time in the future a Speaker will stand at 2 p.m. in this House announce with sadness the passing of the Hon Paul Swain “Minister of This and Associate Minister of That” and invite members to stand for a minute’s silence. Two new fresh-faced MPs sitting where Steve Maharey and I started all those years ago will rise and one will ask: “I wonder who that old codger Swain was?”. I hope someone will have the decency to remind them that he was the captain of the parliamentary cricket team that beat the diplomats in 1997. 
With that I bid members goodbye and good luck. No reira tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I would like to pay tribute to you Madam Speaker for your infinite patience and for your humour. I extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Brian Donnelly and to his New Zealand First colleagues. Kia kaha! 
I have had the privilege of actively participating in a fantastically exciting and at times challenging journey during the 15 years I have been a member of Parliament. I come from a family that has a history of political activity born out of a strong desire to improve the lives of those who are not among the most fortunate in society. I started asking my mother Jean whether I could go to political meetings with her while I was at primary school. Her instructions were: “If you are quiet and sit up straight you can come.” As members will know I have continued to put her rules into practice here in Parliament— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
JILL PETTIS 
: Oh well—OK! Perhaps I have deviated from that path once or twice over the last 15 years particularly the bit about being quiet. Although my interest and political activity increased over the years I never contemplated becoming a member of Parliament. I have never hungered for personal recognition but I have always been highly motivated by the need to make life better for those who are less able to advocate for themselves. I contested the 1990 general election missing by a mere 409 votes—who counts? However I was elected in 1993 and there began this absolutely incredible journey that I have been on ever since. 
I am sure there are some who think they got elected to Parliament as a result of their charm and good looks. I know that I am here because Labour principles are at the core of my very being because of the hard work and commitment of the Whanganui Labour team because of my family both past and present and perhaps most important because the word “Labour” is beside my name on a voting form. I thank the voters who ticked my name and “Labour” during the six elections I contested. I worked hard to deliver on their expectations of me and I hope that in most cases I succeeded. “Thank you” are totally inadequate words to describe the debt of gratitude I feel towards the Whanganui Labour team that has worked with me since 1989. We have had some great times together and my heartfelt thanks go to them all. Politics is not really very glamorous—is it Rona—when you are standing out in the freezing cold selling raffle tickets and holding garage sales to raise funds or delivering pamphlets along streets that seem to stretch for miles. It is the Labour team throughout New Zealand that does the graft in the back rooms and on the streets passionate and committed in its desire for a fair New Zealand for all New Zealanders. 
Members of Parliament could not function successfully without the support of their secretarial staff both in our parliamentary offices and in the electorate. I have been extremely fortunate in the calibre of staff I have had working with me. My staff have all been incredibly loyal and hard-working and I know I would not have achieved what I did without them. I say thank you to my staff for being partners in serving the Whanganui electorate for your humour and also for your strong belief in delivering social justice. As my long-serving secretary Lyn Crossley and I used to frequently say when faced with yet another challenge: “It’s a great life if you don’t weaken.” My husband Warren and our children Trent and Megan have continued to be the wind beneath my wings during the years I have been in Parliament. I would not have been able to do the work I have done without you by my side. Through thick and thin you have been there and I know that you have made many sacrifices for me and for the Labour Party. Your love has sustained me. 
I have always had an interest in conservation and environmental issues and I was really proud to have the opportunity to introduce the Wildlife (Penalties and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill increased the penalties for offences against native flora and fauna and the legislation now really does afford greater protection for our native species. The bill received unanimous support in Parliament and that is not something that happens around here every day. I was not so successful with the Housing Responsibilities Bill where I sought to have income-related rents restored for State house tenants and unfortunately the National MPs of the day voted against the bill. However when Labour came into Government in 1999 one of the first policies we passed was a return to income-related rents. This was a lesson in time patience and the privilege of being a member of a party that knows the benefits of social justice across many policy areas and is prepared to put those policies and beliefs into action. 
Although being an active participant in politics is not for the faint-hearted a day in Government is definitely better than a thousand in Opposition. I have had 6 years of being an Opposition MP and 9 in Government—guess which I prefer? As we battle away in the political trenches much of our work is unseen and intangible but it is all part of the political process we must endure. Saving the West Coast’s forests is a very real and tangible Labour policy and I look forward to the day I can take our grandchildren to see them. The political battle to save these forests was a very new experience for me but I learned from it and went on to face others. We could not have instituted that policy without our leader Helen Clark standing beside us. 
The recently opened $30 million - plus Whanganui University College of Learning campus and the new $34 million Wanganui Hospital clinical services building are just some of the policies I have been absolutely delighted to see put into action in the Whanganui electorate under a Labour-led Government. South Taranaki and large parts of rural Whanganui were included in the reconfigured Whanganui electorate following the introduction of an MMP system in 1996. The Labour team got to work and started to bring new services and investment in these areas and we have seen a new hospital I say to Dan and Rose and other investments in this area. A Heartland Services centre was opened and there was massive investment in roads including the Hawera railway subway the widening of the Tangahoe Bridge and the $7 million investment that will improve the Whanganui River Road. I am descended on the paternal side of my family from Ngati Pamoana of Koroniti on the Whanganui River. Te Ati Haunui-a-Paparangi is my iwi. Facilitating economic development opportunities along the Whanganui River is important to me and I look forward to the expansion of farming horticulture and tourism ventures that improved road safety and access will bring to this part of the electorate. 
New Zealand’s relatively small population means that we know quite a lot about each other. Some people here know things about each of us that we do not even know ourselves. Here in Parliament we are inclined to tell each other occasionally too. The small size of our population and our Parliament also means that we have a unique relationship with the media. Before entering Parliament I used to think the media was some lofty all-knowing all-seeing group of people. Well I soon got that naive idea knocked out of me. They are just the same as us politicians. They do not like criticism either; they also like to have the last word and in most cases they do too. In my early days here the press gallery was famous for its parties. We MPs looked forward to these events as we knew no one in attendance would suffer from dehydration or lack of sustenance. MPs from both sides of the House also knew they would spend some time during the next few days engaged in speculative conversation about what went on both during and after these parties. Well that was then and this is now. Just like us the media are also under much greater scrutiny and have become uncharacteristically sedate. Perhaps it is time for renewal! 
MPs are constantly being told by all manner of people that they should improve their behaviour in the House. Some MPs also venture into this territory. In my maiden speech I acknowledged that the debating chamber was a naturally combative place and that I would not remain silent and quietly accept legislation that would disadvantage the people who elected me to Parliament. I have been known to utter the occasional interjection and a journalist once wrote something uncharitable about my voice and paint or some such description—a cutting blow. I was so devastated that I had to have a wee lie down. However I quickly recovered and continued to point out the error of the ways of the National Party and of any other MP whose party was in opposition to Labour. I hope they realise I was just trying to be helpful. 
Although the general consensus among the public is that we politicians spend our whole time attacking each other there have been moments of great spontaneous humour that every MP has enjoyed. We will never see the likes of David Lange again and his one-liners were brilliant. John Carter could always be relied upon for a joke for the bowling club. National’s Gerry Brownlee has been known to make the occasional helpful interjection too. In June last year some of us were looking forward to directing some informative and helpful interjections—sotto voce of course—towards Gerry following a most interesting meeting he had had in his office. Unfortunately we were thwarted in our cause by the code of conduct for MPs documents that were being tabled in the House that day. Not to be outdone by this temporary stay of required good behaviour I had been making meaningful eye contact with and intimations to Gerry below the Speaker’s radar of course. I have here the note that Gerry wrote to me when he knew he was home free: “Jill sharpen up your conduct and stop hassling and intimidating me in the House. Gerry.” I have yet to witness Gerry being intimidated by anyone. This was an exchange conducted without rancour and with good humour from both of us. Parliament should and hopefully always will be a place where people of strongly held opinions assemble and put their beliefs forward for public scrutiny. This is not a place for as Ralph Chaplin wrote the “cowed and the meek Who see the world’s anguish and its wrong And dare not speak!”. 
I have had a variety of roles and responsibilities during the last 15 years and appreciate the irony of being appointed as an Assistant Speaker a bit like the fox minding the chicken coop. I have also been a junior and senior Government whip. You learn a great deal about human nature in these roles. The work a whip does is largely unseen. However it is an exciting and challenging role with constant liaison between the executive and the backbench and with other parties. The Government whips are often at the centre of what is going on in Parliament and their organisational and management skills are tested every day. 
More recently I have been chair of the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development. This all-party parliamentary group views population and development issues including sexual and reproductive health and rights and gender issues as central to the elimination of poverty. The group also promotes sustainable economic growth and environmental sustainability. Much of the group’s work is focused on the Asia-Pacific region and we value the positive relationship we have with NZAID sharing a belief in delivering international aid and development effectively. 
I love the atmosphere of the debating chamber. It is an exciting place even when the bills being debated may seem tedious and at times irrelevant to the wider public. I am conscious of the fact that only about 120 of us have won the right to sit here at any one time and also of how precious our democratic system is. Too often those who criticise MPs and their behaviour would not have the intestinal fortitude to stand for election and be prepared to suffer the often unjustified criticisms MPs receive almost every day. I believe that New Zealand MPs largely conduct themselves responsibly and care about their constituents their electorates their country and the rest of the world. Voters can choose to elect timid candidates who will never be heard of again once they enter this place but I suspect the electors would soon tire of that sort of character. 
Fifteen minutes in which to cover 15 years of parliamentary service requires some discipline. I have had experiences I never dreamt would be possible. I have met and talked with people I would have only read about if I had not been an MP. I have seen firsthand how highly regarded and respected our country and the Helen Clark Labour-led Government are internationally. It has been an immense privilege to work with Prime Minister Helen Clark. Whoever would have thought I could ring one of the most effective Prime Ministers this country has known and say: “Helen Jill here. Ring me when you’ve got a moment thanks.” 
I am proud to be a New Zealander and I am privileged to have played a role in implementing Labour Party policies that have improved the quality of life for thousands of New Zealanders. I have spent too little time with my family over the last 15 years. Warren and I have two precious grandchildren Isabella and Freddie whom we want to see more of. We are excited about our future. I leave this House comfortable in the knowledge that I tried to do my best. I will always value the truly wonderful range of experiences I have had and I sincerely thank all those who helped make it possible. Thank you. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 As I walked down the corridor to my first caucus meeting in 1996 Helen Clark asked me whether I had made the right decision because 24 hours earlier I had turned down an appointment as the principal of Wellington Girls’ College to become a member of Parliament. There have been many times in the midst of some media-driven storm—unfortunate nicknames unflattering photos and television crews trying to film across backyards into my bedroom—when I have definitely thought that I had made a mistake. Yet on reflection I know I have been given the opportunity to broaden my understanding of this country and to make a difference for my immediate community in Wellington and for New Zealand in general. I am glad that I took the risk but I am also so very happy to be going. 
As I go I have some memories many thanks and some reflections on democracy. The records show that I have held a number of portfolios. When the Prime Minister rang and asked whether I would add environment to broadcasting I advised her that I was arachnophobic to which she replied that that was covered by conservation. But then there was the minimal science education that I had had and my first public issue was genetic modification—I had so much to learn. Thank goodness there was a royal commission! It gave me some time to understand the portfolio. 
Environment was a portfolio and a ministry that I came to love. I enjoyed our weekly meetings with Barry Lindsay Sue Dave Bill Tim and many others. We all learnt together. They learnt about apostrophes; I learnt about the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Our aim was to work with local councils to find solutions such as that to the deteriorating water quality in Lake Taupo and the Rotorua lakes. Sometimes our work was to listen and to enact the solutions proposed at local levels such as the Fiordland Marine Guardians solutions and sometimes it was to provide clear leadership. As someone who grew up in Christchurch smog and lived there for 40 years while people argued over whose fault that dirty air was it was great to be part of a Government that set the national environment standards for air quality. I am confident that lives will be saved because of this work. 
With the National Library and Archives New Zealand I had a clear idea—with Michael Cullen—of what needed to be done. Regardless persuading others of the way forward was just as difficult. But there were wonderful people in those communities—people such as Lydia Wevers Brad and Susan Patterson and Rachel Underwood—and together we found legislative solutions. 
In broadcasting our theme was to celebrate who we were to tell our story. The great success was a local music quota—I say thank you to Katherine Rich for her reference yesterday. Only 3 percent of music played on major stations was New Zealand music. We argued for 20 percent. “Impossible!” they said; “Eat your words!” or something like it was what Michael Cullen said. The music quota and the promotions by Brendan Smyth at New Zealand On Air have given opportunities for New Zealand musicians. We now celebrate our voice and our sound. 
When our second term of Government came around I was very happy to exchange broadcasting for New Zealand aid and disarmament. Matt Robson had worked to establish the new agency NZAID. Now we had the chance to ensure that this aid agency worked differently. We were to concentrate on the Pacific. We determined to work in partnership and thus build the capacity of say the Solomon Islands Education Department or community health in Papua New Guinea. Peter Adams and the wonderful NZAID team have built a way of working that is admired worldwide. It is the Rt Hon Winston Peters whom I must thank and also Michael Cullen for the substantial increase in the aid budget—God does work in mysterious ways! Good effective government works with parties ministries non-governmental organisations and community groups. I feel that I have been part of a very good Government able to work with different partners. 
Good government is also dependent on brilliant public servants. I experienced this when given the curriculum review to supervise for a short time. Professionally I understood this work and I knew enough to know that the review was being undertaken with rigour and energy. The supervision needed was very light indeed. We are so well served by our public servants. Personally I always feel so offended by the derisory term “bureaucrats” which is flung about so easily in this House in order to itch an ill-informed scab. 
I think you can see that I loved being in Cabinet but journalists could not conceive of a person who would voluntarily stand aside from that work. In their eyes I must have been pushed—no politician would ever voluntarily halve his or her pay. It is sad that our press gallery is full of people whose perspective is so jaundiced. It does not build respect for democracy but maybe that is the aim of the media which is increasingly owned by fewer corporations. The fourth estate I think wants to be the sole or only estate. 
In 2005 I did stand down. I dreamt of New Zealand following the Nordic example of being able to build a strong fair society around years of social democratic Governments rather than the turnover every 6 to 9 years with the consequent catch-up repair and buy-back that always has to take place. To achieve this requires excellent succession planning and anyone with a brain and eyes today can see that we in Labour have achieved it. Twenty-five percent of our 2005 caucus has retired or is retiring in favour of some very talented successors with new perspectives and new experiences. 
In 2005 it was back to the backbench and three select committees and latterly the enjoyable role of Assistant Speaker. I was particularly proud of the manner in which the Local Government and Environment Committee—John Carter—worked together to bring back positive legislation on waste recovery. And this is a good time to thank Mark Blumsky. We have worked well together in Wellington over the years and that same style was evident in select committee work. Thanks Mark for always treating me as a friend and a human being especially when I was in the poo. I also loved working with Brian Donnelly and I am so sad to hear of his passing today. He had the unenviable task of chairing a select committee that had four principals on it; that he survived is amazing. 
I have positive memories of life as a politician to take away with me and Madam Speaker I very much appreciate the support you have always given me both in Cabinet and in the House. Few people know—but I will reveal it now—that we were taught by the same nuns. That accounts for our hair colouring. These positive memories though are tempered by my concerns about the role of the media in democracy. It is not a concern about whether different news media organisations support a particular party nor is it a concern about how I personally may have been reported. Rather it is a concern about the trivialisation of decision making in society. For that is what politics is: the making of decisions be it the laws we pass or the Budgets we approve. But modern news media do not evaluate our decisions in the light of which policy is best. Instead they build a web around personalities and behaviours. It is about hockey mums versus the first black presidential nomination. It is about a smiley new face versus the one we are familiar with. The news is about the decision makers and rarely about the decisions. By focusing on the shallow world of perception we can afford not to analyse the different policies or choices. In fact we can do away with policies altogether. 
Such a light analysis of the issues of course plays into the hand of the slick and polished. I take up Steve Maharey’s point that any attempt at thinking out loud or inviting comment is dismissed as weakness and if one trips over words or confuses a term or name then one is portrayed as a poor performer. It is very interesting to note the concept of “performance”. To be successful in this world of light analysis one need only sound assertive even—and especially—when one does not know what one is talking about. The impression that one knows is enough. If one belongs to a paper whose journalist numbers are shrinking then it is quicker to accept the assertion as truth without searching for any evidence. If we continue in this unholy partnership between assertion without knowledge and a celebrity-focused media then democracy will be short-changed and we will get the politicians we do not deserve. We will be presented with the slick and image-rich and we will lose out on the politician who listens who collaborates who invites comment and who actually thinks and reflects. 
In the world of perception debate becomes the repeated exchange of carefully tested phrases—when we are in the Chair we hear them all the time—and sound bites rather than an in-depth analysis of the issues. The media are not interested in argument—only in posturing and emotion. If I had not experienced such in-depth debate in Cabinet committees and in some select committees then I would not have survived 12 years of trivia. Column inches have been wasted on perks but has equivalent space been devoted to the importance of strong Central European economies to stability in Europe? Every Christmas we learn what prisoners are eating for their lunch that day but has there ever been a story about trades learnt or literacy gained by those in prison? As a society we deserve better. 
Our taxes do provide one shiny example of good analysis: Radio New Zealand. Thank you Kim Hill for bringing science and mathematics into the mainstream on a Saturday morning. Thank you Veronika Meduna for explaining complex issues so clearly. Work on genetic modification taught me that both science and statistics were poorly understood at a time we needed to understand them in order to make good decisions. 
I end this valedictory with many thanks—first to Helen the Prime Minister. Helen you entrusted me this inexperienced politician and eccentric principal with some very interesting portfolios. Thank you—it is sincerely meant. I admire your courage and strength—it is awesome. You keep going in the face of horrible personal attack and innuendo that others would run away from. But although I admire your courage above all I love how you work so hard for New Zealanders—not for Helen Clark but for New Zealanders—so that we can all have a better life. I get so cross when people mistake the power to do good for power for power’s sake. Thank you so much. 
To Michael Cullen I say a special thanks. You were so patient in your financial explanations. I know that my Cabinet colleagues always sighed with relief when I asked my questions. You have been so staunch so principled and so clear about supporting those New Zealanders who cannot support themselves. Your service as Minister of Finance will be applauded in all the history books of the future and is that not deliciously ironic? In my role as Assistant Speaker I have come to appreciate your exceptional devotion to and leadership of this House. You treat Parliament with respect. 
I have been blessed with wonderful public servants to work with from a number of ministries and I include the staff of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Cabinet Office who are always tidying up after me. Thank you all for your patience your humour your honesty and your amazing hard work. To my staff in my ministerial office—Neil Trevor Grant Alistair Viv and Paula—thank you for being such a brilliant team. You and the ministry staff survived my regular post - question time depression and always supplied the missing names nouns and terms in any meeting. What will I do without you in Birmingham? 
Paula—we have worked together for 8 years and you are brilliant and reliable. I tell members not to line up to take her! No travel plan has ever been messed up and no appointment forgotten. I have enjoyed good company—in particular I have enjoyed watching you with your family; the parenting skills of you and Tony always fill me with hope for our society. I thank my electorate office staff: Sheila Anna and the ones who went before them—I think I see Jordan up in the gallery; he was known as Diggory when I forgot his name. People think that I do it all in the electorate but it is your networking your courtesy and your attention to detail that have made my service to Wellington Central possible. 
To Jimmy I give very special thanks. People think that VIP drivers are mere chauffeurs; you are all so much more. On the morning I learnt that my mother had died while Jimmy was driving me back from the airport he organised staff to come around with soup and bread and to support me while I gathered myself together before representing the Government at the Armistice Day service. Jimmy explained to the Visits and Ceremonial Office and to the army chaplain that I might cry a little more than normal in the circumstance. Thank you Jimmy for being a true friend in both sad times and happy times and for looking after me. And I extend my thanks to the security staff—and I have needed them on many occasions—the officers of this House the messengers and the staff at Bellamy’s for always being so cheerful and helpful in this House. 
To Claire my daughter and to Josh my son who is not here: thank you both for growing up into wonderful people. You did this in spite of me and my always wanting to change the world while ignoring the pile of ironing or your homework. You both work so hard for a just society. I feel so proud that in your different ways you work for social justice. I love you both and feel very loved by you. I often feel that you are both so much wiser than your ever-so-crazy mother. 
Finally I thank the constituents of Wellington Central and within that the local Labour team. You trusted me you worked with me—please shift that trust to Grant Robertson. Grant has worked with me for over 12 years. We have learnt much from each other. I go with ease and happiness because I am confident that if my constituents select Grant for Wellington Central he will serve them with commitment empathy and intelligence. He is a person of integrity and personal warmth. In my wildest dreams I could not imagine a better successor. 
Madam Speaker and parliamentary colleagues time limits prevent further stories and thanks but thank you for the privilege of working with you all in the last 12 years. Kia kaha e hoa ma; kia manawanui! 
Hon VUI MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I acknowledge the passing of my good rugby league mate the Hon Brian Donnelly; may he go in peace. 
Madam Speaker I acknowledge you and the other presiding officers. The Hon Margaret Wilson has made history as our first woman Speaker and I thank her for her friendship over many years. The Hon Clem Simich showed me the value of being fair to Opposition MPs as a select committee chair. I have tried to follow his example in that role. I thank the people who work to make this Parliament the place it is: the Office of the Clerk select committee and parliamentary staff the library the messengers security staff drivers and of course those who feed us and keep this place clean and well maintained. 
There are a number of us departing today and I acknowledge all of them and the Labour family who have gathered to support us. Kia ora talofa lava and greetings. There are 117 years of collective experience amongst us—something most workplaces would recognise as being a significant loss of knowledge yet the public commentary will probably be minimal. I am going to miss this place the many friends who will be returning later this year and those like me who are leaving. They are special people who have given their best to this place and our country. 
Nineteen ninety-six was our first MMP Parliament and I was a list MP encouraged here particularly by my good friend David Lange and many others. We waited a long time for a Government to be formed and even longer to make maiden speeches. I look back on that speech and feel enormous satisfaction at what has been achieved in the past 12 years and in the role I have played in delivering on the expectations of the people who put us here. 
The people of Maungakiekie elected me from 1999 onwards as their electorate MP and I thank them for their loyalty and support. I achieved that with the help of a loyal and hard-working group of Labour Party members and supporters. There are many of them but I would like to especially acknowledge Robert Gallagher Murray Cotter Christine O’Brien Adrian Martin-Devitt Leila Boyle Richard Northey Andrew Beyer and Jo Fitzpatrick and of course Carol Beaumont who will fill my seat later this year. The union affiliates and the energetic Pacific sector have always been there for me—fa’afetai tele lava; thank you very much. Helping me have been two extraordinary friends. My electorate agents John Fenton and Lydia Sosene epitomise what true public service really means and they do their work with love in their hearts. I thank them both. 
In Wellington there are many people whom I would like to mention but they are too numerous to name: those who worked in my office when I was a Minister to make the work we produced so much better with their efforts and who stood by me through very trying times. I thank them. I worked with intelligent committed and talented people in the ministries and departments I was responsible for. I praise them for their efforts. We are lucky in this country that good people are prepared to sacrifice personal wealth and opportunity to work in our public services for the good of our communities. There are a couple of people I do want to thank personally. For 10 years Jen Toogood worked with me here in Parliament. She kept me sane and organised. She taught me how this place worked and offered enormous friendship to me and my family. Thank you Jen. Since she escaped Janet Emmerson has filled that role and I thank her too. 
For 9 of my 12 years I have been part of a very good Government led by two exceptional people. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are great Labour leaders who ensured we delivered what we promised and more. They will continue to deliver. It was an honour for a South Auckland working-class boy like me to serve in their Cabinet for almost 4 years. I wish it could have been longer but that was not to be. I look back now with great pride at the things we achieved together: income-related rents for State house tenants the scrapping of the Employment Contracts Act the reorganisation of primary health care so people could go to the doctor again the minimum wage increases and 4 weeks’ annual leave KiwiSaver Kiwibank KiwiRail and so on. I believe strongly in those things and that is why I came to Parliament—to change our laws and spending priorities. 
I never thought I would be a “roads and bridges” sort of politician. When I became Minister of Transport I was in severe danger of not being one. I sat down with transport officials early on and I was told we would not even start on a new piece of motorway in Auckland in our first term let alone finish one. Such was the shambles we inherited. Well there are many roads bridges and motorways now built and a busway I feel particularly proud of. I never got my name on the opening plaque of many of them but I can now drive on them with a sense of pride I thought I would never feel. To my Green comrades I say we dramatically boosted public transport spending too—something enormously important to the community I represent and to the environment. 
Last year I went to Samoa with my family to receive the matai title of Vui from my grandmother’s village of Lano on Savaii. I treasure that trip and the title I was given. It sits alongside the honour I have of being the first person of Pasifika descent to be the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs. Samoan culture requires a title to be earned but I still felt enormous trepidation about accepting these roles because I am New Zealand-born and without the language of my father. But the Pacific community is generous and has given me great love and support. This empowered me to confidently work on policies I believe have made a difference. Pacific people are now able to send their children to early childhood centres that teach in their first languages more of them are achieving educationally we have built capacity in health delivery education and social services and Pacific people are taking the world by storm—not just in sport but in music art film television and writing. I know that because I hear it on our very own radio stations and occasionally see it on our very monocultural TV screens. 
I thought of one thing that best illustrated the satisfaction an MP can get from doing this job. There are many things I have been involved in but this stood out. On the wall behind my desk I have had a photo for several years. It is a picture of the Prime Minister and me with a Tongan family in Te Papapa Auckland. It was at the opening of the first Healthy Housing project that Housing New Zealand Corporation undertook which happened because we had a terrible problem with illnesses like meningococcal disease caused in part by overcrowding in houses due to the market rents regime of the 1990s. Together the university district health boards and Housing New Zealand mapped the worst outbreaks located at-risk families and built them larger more appropriate homes to live in on existing State-owned land. The market had delivered disease and poverty; good joined-up Government delivered people from that. I feel proud of that; it is a type of work that defines us as a true Labour Government. 
I have had some fun and learned many lessons along the way. In an early unguarded moment as Minister of Housing I sat for over an hour with a reporter discussing my aspirations and plans for the portfolio. I thought it went well. The next day I picked up the newspaper to read the headline “Minister to give BBQs to State tenants”—or something ridiculous like that. I took flak for at least a week. It was not my suggestion or plan but that did not matter to the journalist; he had scored a good hit on the new Minister. I will not reveal where the suggestion came from but I am glad I did not mention the other one from the same person who had suggested turning State houses around to face the sun—not a bad idea I think. 
During my term as Minister of Transport I faced some tough times. From memory Ansett in Australia collapsed Air New Zealand and Qantas were in severe trouble here and our railways were broke and broken. In the House in the midst of all this chaos I was asked the inevitable question by a member from over there: “Can the Minister list his achievements since taking over the portfolio?” Ah the joys of question time! We did of course rescue Air New Zealand and rail. I pay tribute to Michael Cullen. It was inspiring to work beside him on those significant issues. 
My scariest moment was not here but in a school gymnasium in Auckland. It was the year the APRA Silver Scroll Awards picked the best 30 New Zealand songs of all time. I was asked to play drums by an old mate Al Hunter with a band of very very good professional musicians. The song was Dave Dobbyn’s “Loyal” 
 
 and I drove my family absolutely mad learning it properly. They hate the song now. I was nervous as! A huge audience with the cream of New Zealand musical talent including Dobbyn Herbs Bic Runga etc. were all sitting there. Finally we were on the stage and all was going well until Al forgot the words and stopped singing. The drum part starts and stops and I had learnt when to come back in from the lyrics. Ah! Just in time Al remembered the words and I came back in on cue. What a relief! We got through. Of course some kind journalist bagged me for even being there but I give big thanks to Al for asking me—I loved it. 
We speak a lot in this job and I enjoy it except when I have to read speeches. I have never had any serious slips of the tongue—not like John Carter anyway. It was very cunning. But I recently avoided the debate on the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill in the House. I kept getting the title wrong and did so in front of an audience of more than 300 when boasting of the imminent passing of the “Rest Breaks and Infant Breeding Bill”. It might be a good idea Paul. 
As I prepared this my last speech in the House I thought back to my first. That day I spoke of my hopes and ideals and my family were sitting in the gallery. Many of them are here again today. I greet my daughter Jessica son Jacob and grandson Izaiah and I acknowledge Liz who is away shopping—overseas. My children have known a father involved only in unions and politics but they love me anyway as I do them. I greet my mothers brothers and sisters and others who have travelled to offer support—loving support that only families can give. 
There are two family members missing though: my wife Carol and our son Kristian. It is Carol’s birthday today. I say “Happy birthday honey.” She is sitting at home watching this with my beautiful sister Sala who is our rock. I hope they have figured how to watch it on the television. Carol and I have been together since September 1974. We met as teenagers. I am here in this place because of her loving support. When she was struck down with a severe brain haemorrhage in 2002 our lives changed forever. Carol requires 24/7 total care and always will. She survived the normally fatal bleed through a combination of will power and prayer coupled with the marvellous skills of the people who work in Wellington public hospital. She has been at home for 3½ years cared for by devoted and loving caregivers and our family. I pay tribute to Loto Sabrina Milika Losa Fotui Ketuli and others who have worked in our home. They are all patient and wonderfully caring women. I also acknowledge the dedicated people who have worked with Carol these past years to help her survive and make some improvement. Carol has continued to encourage me in this job. Even now she would be prepared to see me carry on but it is time to move on. 
Without Carol’s mother Shirley Gladding I could not have contemplated continuing in Parliament as long as this. Shirley has enabled me to be here. She has given me and Carol so much and we love her dearly. 
People react to disability in different ways. We have seen some friends and even family members drift away from us. That is not a criticism of anyone; it is just a reality for many disabled people and their families. I was told this would occur. We have been blessed though with truly good friends. I have already mentioned our Labour family but I also acknowledge very special people like Cathie Sharpe Paul Chalmers Fiona Johnston and Beverley Roser who give us so much support. Of course I thank again all my caucus colleagues who carried extra burdens so I could care for Carol especially Ruth Dyson and Steve Maharey who guided me through the best and worst of times. 
I leave this place with some parting requests. My family has experienced many challenges. We have lived with Carol’s disability for 6½ long years. Many families share this experience and more will do so in the future as medical science keeps people alive who once would have died. Twenty-two New Zealanders a day have a stroke and just over half of the survivors have ongoing problems with disability. They experience a different regime from that of those who are disabled by an accident. I would forego a thousand tax cuts if I was able to access the treatment and services that Carol needs and would receive if she were covered by accident compensation. I know there are other families who feel the same. As a nation we can afford to treat people equally and I implore members to commit to this as a Parliament in the future. 
In the last few years in my community I have worked strenuously on our youth and violence problems. We have made great progress especially in my home town of Otahuhu. I love doing this work and I want to continue it when I finish here. What is clear to me is that behind the problems in communities throughout New Zealand is the damage done by the deregulated labour market. The insane idea that we must all be available to work 24 hours a day 7 days a week has ruined family life for too many. Our communities suffer we struggle to find people to run our schools and clubs and many parents just are not there when their kids really need them. This is what lies behind the youth gang problems of the poor streets and the drug problems of the rich leafy suburbs—not the lack of longer and longer prison sentences as advocated by some. Employers must pay more than lip service to the need for proper work-life balance or our Government must legislate for it. 
As I said earlier the other person who is not in the gallery today is my beloved son Kristian. I ask on behalf of the hundreds of families each year like ours who suffer the loss of a son or brother as we did that efforts continue to reduce our suicide rate and to find answers so we can avoid the grief we still feel. 
Madam Speaker I have felt motivated for years by the idea of working to make things better for future generations. I have been privileged to have had 12 years here working on that goal. Six years ago I actually became a grandfather so the idea became more real and more pressing. Three weeks ago I missed grandparents’ day at Izaiah’s school because I was stuck here under urgency. I will not do that again nor be away on Carol’s next birthday. I look forward to carrying on my work locally being home at night supporting the Warriors more often and having a more normal family life. 
Finally some years ago I read a quote from a former politician. I am hopeless at remembering these things so please forgive me if I paraphrase. It goes something like: “There are people who go into politics to be something and there are people who go into politics to do something.” I hope that I will be remembered as one of the latter. Thank you and farewell. Ia soifua ma Ia manuia. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. A valedictory is essentially a once-in-a-lifetime affair—a privilege denied to those departing after an election defeat or after an early and rushed poll of the 1984 variety—so like all rare objects a valedictory should be treated with respect and care. Our maiden speeches may be flushed with naive and outrageous optimism but our valedictories are where the rubber hits the road. One of those watershed moments is described powerfully by Eminem in “Lose Yourself”: 
Look if you had one shot or one opportunity  
To seize everything you ever wanted—One moment 
Would you capture it or just let it slip? 
We politicians are practitioners of the mysterious art of representative democracy. We the departing Labour “nine guitars” know how hard it can be to explain that art to potential employers yet the skills of listening and acting of guiding people and causes to solutions of managing committees and portfolios and of promoting values are all real and all valuable. How does one meaningfully summarise 12 intensely busy years doing this work of democracy? I have long tortured my Christchurch colleagues Lianne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson by dividing speeches on every conceivable topic into three points so it would now be entirely unreasonable to disappoint them. Of course this all comes with a warning. With certainty the American humorist Ambrose Bierce defined history—the subject of most valedictories—as “An account mostly false of events mostly unimportant which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves and soldiers mostly fools.” 
First one can attempt to tell the story of democracy with numbers—election results casework achieved changes experienced—the vital statistics of the job. The business of democracy can be brutal: elected MPs live and die by majorities. I first stood for Parliament in 1996. Then mobile phones were as large as bricks people communicated with MPs by visits and letters and websites were places where spiders lived. My campaign volunteers were a little mystified by the potential but irritated Labour voter who phoned my campaign office to complain that when she searched for me on the web all she could find was an admittedly impressive full frontal picture of the US porn star Tim Barnett. My win then was maybe understandably the narrowest of any electorate member of Parliament—with a majority of 653. Survival was my total focus for that first 3 years. By the last election my majority reached 7836 and sleep was a lot easier. 
At the heart of New Zealand democracy are local and personal concerns. I represent Christchurch Central. It is home to vibrant neighbourhoods the urban heritage heartland of our nation and a succession of superb Thai restaurants that have sustained me through the years. It includes the most valuable real estate in the South Island and for many generations some of the poorest people. Those who fall through the net come to a local member of Parliament. We comfort strategise inform advocate and even link people together to create a campaign. This is eternal work. The task of responding to such presented need is as deep as the ocean and as vital as fresh air in areas like Christchurch Central. In the 12 years representing that electorate my staff and I have opened 10400 case files. Health immigration and Work and Income matters make up about a third of them. The sheer range of other matters reaching us as electorate MPs is unrivalled in other Western democracies. The profile of cases has changed and the success rate has increased because for the past 9 years we have had a Government that cares more for communities like mine and that has invested political energy and funds in making government work for the people rather than work against them. 
The business of democracy is about improving lives. Numbers help to show just how dramatic those 9 years have been for real people living real lives. The minimum wage for young people has risen from $4.20 an hour to in nearly all cases $12 an hour. The average young family has seen annual doctors’ bills cut by 70 percent. Nearly 3000 people fewer in my electorate rely on an unemployment benefit. Over 4000 children have been lifted out of poverty. But the business of democracy does not come cheap. Just last week I gazed out at the glorious snow-covered Seaward Kaikouras on the Wellington to Christchurch flight. I worked out that I had flown that route 1800 or so times in the last 12 years experienced over 1000 question times and expended more money than I care to imagine to employ staff and run offices. This is a style of political representation that New Zealanders seem to want and that has produced the results to date. 
Describing democracy by numbers is one way; another is to talk about achievements. Margaret Thatcher once claimed that her greatest achievement was to reform the Labour Party dragging it in her political direction. A glance at recent policy positioning in New Zealand suggests that that has happened here—in political reverse. But sometimes of course appearances deceive. 
Democracy is about creating laws. I sponsored one significant member’s bill the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 and had a big part to play in the Civil Union Act 2004. They are laws with real-life outcomes. To date those outcomes include 600 fewer arrests of sex workers the setting up and monitoring of health and safety standards for the sex industry and 2814 people—led by John and Des up in the gallery today—who are living and loving secure in civil unions. 
Democracy is about scrutinising proposed laws and inquiring into important matters. For 6 years I chaired a significant select committee that tackled such seminal matters as setting up the New Zealand Supreme Court; ensuring that unfair discrimination was removed from public law Government policy and day-to-day activity—and from merely playing catch-up to the rest of society—and establishing a clean slate regime. 
Democracy is about making an extraordinary codependency relationship with the media work well. In that respect I have long ascribed to the advice that if one is going to invite a tiger to lunch there is little point in pouring the sauce over oneself. 
Democracy is about working together whenever possible. For the past 3 years I have been the senior Government whip: the person who sweeps up after the elephant counsels the elephant helps it to make friends with other elephants and occasionally polishes its toenails and feeds it bananas. Our Labour caucus has been the most united and positive of teams—49 strong personalities with a love of humour a passion to deliver change and a strong and enduring culture of diversity. One could ask for no more from one’s colleagues. In Christchurch Central I have a special political and personal relationship with our city’s strong and vibrant occasionally argumentative refugee communities—Afghani Eritrean Ethiopian Kurdish Nepalese Somali and Zimbabwean. Their people’s personal journeys are humbling. When they break through the barriers my pride as a Kiwi knows no bounds. 
Democracy is about inspiring and empowering people. Over the years in the House I have run about 400 lobby training sessions involving nearly 5000 people. Recently I have trained members of Parliament in Papua New Guinea Bougainville Timor-Leste and the Cook Islands—with Zimbabwe to come in a couple of months—in how to do their jobs better strengthening democracy in the process. I note that when I was in the Cook Islands just a few weeks ago I was intending to do that training with the Hon Brian Donnelly but he announced the day before his resignation as High Commissioner. He came to farewell the members of Parliament when I was with him in that Chamber; it was an extraordinarily moving moment—kia kaha! It is immensely gratifying to promote the genuine virtue of a contemporary Kiwi democracy: the significant influence of smaller political parties powerful select committees and a reasonably corruption-free environment. 
We can explain democracy by numbers and by achievements but people are my enduring memory. There are some whose names I have long forgotten such as a sex worker who speaking to a select committee described her role with her client behind the closed door of the brothel room as being “a social worker who went all the way”. There are some whose names I will keep private such as a delightful Maori man born as it happens 2 days after I was who was dreadfully abused at Lake Alice Mental Hospital and who was supported through my electorate office to make his public housing tenancy succeed and to avoid blowing his new compensation payment in the 4 weeks it had taken to spend the last one. And there are many whose names I say with pride. My 12 years here have been under the extraordinary inspiring utterly principled leadership of Helen Clark who is now the world’s longest-serving progressive leader. None of us will see better than her in our lifetimes. Back in 1996 I was one of the MMP intake fresh from a roadshow arguing—successfully in my view—for first past the post against my sadly missed soulmate and MMP advocate Rod Donald. Long term he was of course right. My last 3 years here have been enriched by my daily 1 o’clock meetings with Madam Speaker Margaret Wilson—my confidante my mentor and even an extremely young mother substitute who gave me away at my civil union. 
I feel obliged at this point to mention my assistant Darren Hughes; my life here and beyond would not be worth living if I did not. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Well done ambassador! 
TIM BARNETT 
: Kia ora! 
Through these 12 years I have been served so much better than I deserved by my wonderful parliamentary and electorate office staff: Amanda Bridget Bruno Gareth Geoff Greg Ingrid Jay Jeremy Kimberly Kate Lynne the two Pams Rose Steve Sue Tony and Yani; and star interns: Ben Heida Oliver Pete Polly Tor and Stacy. They all gave more than they could reasonably be expected to give they were all honest with me and they all offered aroha and protection when that was needed. I hope that all of them have grown a little through the experience. Fortunately I leave the Christchurch Central Labour Party strong buoyed by the various leaderships of Andrew Dallas Ray Murray Robert Watson and Duncan Webb and I leave a candidate Brendon Burns who will make a great and devoted new member of Parliament for Christchurch Central. 
When I was elected in 1996 I was the only openly gay member of Parliament and I was labelled by the  
Evening Post 
 as “Parliament’s gay Pom” as though every institution needed one. Now I am one of a good half-dozen rainbow MPs here. Thankfully being gay or lesbian will never be irrelevant; the journeys of self-discovery and public advancement that we travel give us special insights and strengths. The venom poured on us by more than a few in New Zealand and by the great majority in some countries shows that we are different and the fact that some equate difference with threat means that discrimination and oppression will follow. Our sexuality comes alive with those we fall in love with. I say to Ramon Pare who is up in the public gallery today my life changed forever after meeting you in the parliamentary swimming pool with Nanaia Mahuta—I will tell the story after. Ramon you have been with me for most of my time here in Parliament. I still remember a few weeks after we became partners pointing you out to my dearly remembered colleague Helen Duncan when you were sitting in the gallery. After peering up at the gallery she cautiously and somewhat anxiously asked in that gravelly voice of hers: “Tim how old is he?”. Ramon you have from your very slightly younger perspective been my rock and my sponge through this strangest of lifestyles—and it is only 7 weeks until our OE starts. 
Democracy is too often about ambitions frustrated. I am happy to report that I leave satisfied at the time and in the manner of my choosing and in a very positive mood. I am well aware that few depart from here in that way. Do I have regrets? There are a few maybe but none that eat away at me. For all that I did not do here there were other things that I did do and I regret none of those. 
So what next? I have always tried to build on what has gone before in my career from voluntary work to local voluntary sector management from that to national-level non-governmental organisation leadership and from elected local body membership to Parliament. The challenge left for me is to work for a while in an agency on some of the biggest issues of the world maybe at the United Nations with the resources and authority to make a difference. The fearful challenges for all our futures are great. The solutions are clear even if the routes to them are far from easy. If I can play a helpful part in working through some of those and then come back to Aotearoa then I will be very happy indeed. 
Democracy is about moulding and marketing visions for the future so what are my messages? I will offer just a couple. It was on my first visit to the United States in the mid-1980s that an inspiring Chamber of Commerce president in Hartford Connecticut—a city riven by a searing social and economic gulf between white rich and brown and Hispanic poor—surprised and delighted me when declaring that a society is best judged by the way it treats its most marginal people. New Zealand does well by this standard. Five years ago we became the first nation in the world to decriminalise prostitution 3 years ago we became the first nation outside Europe to legislate for equal rights for same-sex couples and a year ago we took the brave and necessary step of protecting children the most powerless people in our society from parental cruelty. Such a reform agenda is about creating clear law to deal with the wrongs that keep people on the margins. In my view that reforming energy needs to move on to voluntary euthanasia—righting the wrong of deaths made ghastly by massive pain which is in a sense a complete helplessness and powerlessness—and to a revolution in our drug laws which generate the nonsense of $4 being spent on prevention for every $1 spent on treatment with 90 percent of the cannabis crop remaining undetected and keeping gangs rich and courts full. The fundamentalist lobbies in our society seek to veto debate on such matters. Acceding to that veto is to avoid problems that it is Parliament’s duty not to avoid. 
Second New Zealand forgets at its peril that the region in which it is nearest to being a dominant influence is the Pacific. On offer to us in the Pacific is tremendous goodwill and what is best about our nation feeds opportunities to inspire and resource those fragile States in a distinct post-colonial partnership rather than in a colonial style. As—thankfully—we increase our development aid to those States we must greatly lift our game in strengthening their democracies by working directly with politicians and by asking them and not officials what their needs are. It is not happening now and it needs to happen. 
Ramon my MP whanau around me here my friends in the gallery watching and listening and even those reading this afterwards including my dear mother Faye in Britain we all know that wisdom is all around us if only we would take the trouble to learn. I have grasped the opportunity learnt to my capacity in these 12 years and now I am moving on wiser seeking and spying new horizons. The experience has ended. In Eminem’s words: 
You only get one shot do not miss your chance to blow  
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime yo … 
You own it you better never let it go. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker and colleagues it is hard to imagine what more might be said but I would reinforce some of the comments that my colleagues have made and add some further observations. 
The last 9 years have been full of remarkable policy achievement. Who would not be pleased that the kept promises of this Government are now improving the lives of New Zealanders? We can all celebrate and should do so that under this Government superannuation is secure the Working for Families package is making a real difference to thousands of families and Kiwibank and KiwiSaver are helping to assure our future. It now costs much less to visit the doctor prescriptions average $3 and preschoolers have 20 hours’ free early childhood education. I am personally proud of the passage of legislation that I inherited and that Tim and others have referred to in respect of civil unions and the care of children and I note also the success of the reintegration of Child Youth and Family Services into the Ministry of Social Development family. Stunning reductions in unemployment beneficiary numbers—from 161000 in 1999 to fewer than 20000 now—have enabled the implementation of new initiatives such as Working New Zealand and programmes to improve access to health services and to support and strengthen vulnerable families. I want to acknowledge the leadership in this area of the Ministry of Social Development and I am delighted to see Peter Hughes Sue Mackwell Doug Craig and Don Gray in the gallery today. I want to extend to them and to my former ministerial staff Debbie Janet and Linda my thanks for their dedication their professionalism and their friendship. 
Another area where we are making progress—and we surely need to—is in respect of the violence in our households. I remain appalled that in a country with our awful level of domestic violence anyone should seriously advocate the need to provide a defence for violence against children. Let us hope that gradually our communities are coming to agree that it is not OK. But we should all be frustrated that not enough objectivity is applied to the charades that happen in the community and in this place and that Opposition parties and other parties in the community indulge themselves so uncritically in playing to the basest motivations in our community. Government is about facing up to hard decisions. How could it be that this country debated a “fart tax”—which was not about either farts or a tax actually—and then the Government was criticised by those who had built the deceit for not moving fast enough on issues relating to global warming? I guess the latest exercise in similar cynicism is the extraordinary argument—it is not a discussion or a debate—around energy-saving light bulbs. Really? So now it is a bad thing to encourage everyone to save money save energy and make a practical contribution to the challenges we all face? Well if that is PC bring it on. 
It is because of a lack of serious informed debate that I consider it a tragedy that too many journalists have become players not reporters. Some of them want to be the news; they no longer want to merely report events. Those who were once watchdogs have appointed themselves attack dogs and some are about as endearing and useful as the nastiest pit bull. Our community in my view needs to give more attention to the key role of the media in ensuring the dissemination of accurate information on issues and improving above all the quality of debate. Last week I was reading the words of a British media commentator who outlined her view of the media responsibility for the quality of the conversation as much as for the quality of the presentation of the news. That responsibility in our community is not enhanced in my view by journalists who consider it acceptable for example to text the Leader of the Opposition during question time and it is certainly not achieved by the open articulation of personal political views. 
When I became senior Government whip in 2002 my colleagues told me that in that job I would see the very best and very worst of human nature. The list of the achievements of this Government fills the first category as do the relationships with some wonderful colleagues both political and staff. The fascinating idiosyncrasies and dark revelations will have to wait I am afraid for the best seller but I do want to spend a few moments on the lower levels of debate in this place in the last few years. One of the episodes I consider most disgraceful has been the constant attack on the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. The policy as we all know was introduced by National. I have watched and been involved in the introduction of that qualification both as Associate Minister of Education and as a parent of high school students. I have seen the positive effect on my daughter and son and the motivating effect on them and their friends. That is a common experience. Are they satisfied with Achieved? I do not think so; Merit and Excellence are the targets. Is it not great to have in our country a qualification designed for New Zealand and New Zealand’s needs? So how destructive it has been to hear the constant criticism of this initiative and the inevitable demeaning of the efforts and achievements of our young people and the work of so many great Kiwi teachers. It was not I think the Opposition’s proudest moment. 
The real low point for me though given the hours that a senior whip in particular spends in this Chamber has been the repeated veiled insults and other misogynistic behaviour toward female presiding officers in this debating chamber. It is ugly stuff; hard to put up with but difficult to do anything about. I hope this is something to which a future Parliament will give attention. 
But let me turn to happier thoughts. My special thanks go to voters in Dunedin for their support during 23 years as their city councillor or MP. I hope I have always repaid their loyalty with my hard work. I say thank you to all parliamentary staff who make this building function so well including those we do not know who clean up after us while we sleep; to Gina Anastasiadis who has wonderfully managed the challenges of parliamentary whips and ministerial officers; to Trudi Sunitsch my Dunedin office manager who has delivered a level of service to our community that would make any MP look good; and to my family for putting up with it all and even delivering leaflets occasionally. 
We are coming up to an election. We again own Air New Zealand the rail track the rail corridor—the whole operation—and a world-leading accident compensation system that is not being privatised. This Government will not sell them—eventually. Best of all young New Zealanders are not coming home from their OE in Iraq in body bags. They would have been had voters made a different choice in 2002 or 2005. For me that makes the choice this year pretty clear. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Labour) 
: 
 Tihei mauri ora. Te mea tuatahi Madam Speaker kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere o nga kawa o te Whare kei te mihi atu ki a koe. E nga iwi e nga reo e nga matawaka o nga hau e wha haere mai piki mai kake mai. Haere mai ki te whakarongo ki nga korero poroporoaki o nga mema kei te wehe atu i te ana o nga raiona. Me mihi atu hoki ki o tatou karangaranga maha ki o tatou tini mate e hinga mai ra e hinga atu nei e hinga mai ra e hinga atu nei. Ko tenei tetahi o tatou ko Brian Donnelly kua haere atu ki te tutaki i a ratou i muri i te arai no reira e nga tini mate haere koutou haere koutou haere koutou. E nga ropu me nga mema katoa o te Whare Paremata kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ka mai ki ahau i tenei aha na wai tenei tono maku e ki atu ki a koe ko ahau tenei e korero atu nei. Ka ki mai koe he aha te mea nui o tenei ao maku e ki atu ki a koe he tangata he tangata he tangata e. 
[ 
Behold the sneeze of life. The first thing for me Madam Speaker is to acknowledge you as adjudicator of House procedure: greetings to you. To the people languages ethnic groups of the four winds welcome draw near draw close. Come and listen to the valedictory speeches by departing members from the lair of the lions. I acknowledge our many callings and the multitude of our deaths that have fallen there here far and near. I acknowledge the passing of Brian Donnelly as one of our own beyond the veil where he will meet up with them. So to you the many who have died: depart farewell go forth. To all the political parties and members I acknowledge you all. You might well ask who is that talking and I will respond: it is I. If you ask me what is the greatest thing in this world I will reply: it is people it is people it is people indeed. 
] 
Madam Speaker this is an acknowledgment of your role as the big chief in this House and the keeper of the rules of this House and also a call of welcome to those who have come from afar from different canoes and from the four winds and an acknowledgment of all parties and all parliamentary colleagues in this House. We remember those ancestors friends and loved ones who have passed away and of course lately our friend and colleague the late Brian Donnelly. If you were to ask me what the greatest thing on this earth is I would reply: “It is our people it is our people it is our people.” 
I have been listening to the ringing of the bells and watching the clock controlling my life since I entered Parliament in 1996 and I certainly was moved by the departure of Nandor Tanczos the Green member who in his valedictory speech took out his watch and proceeded to demolish it with a vengeance. For the very same reason I intend to follow his example. I look at my watch; it has been a buddy of mine for a long time since I was knee-high to a grasshopper diving for crayfish. I remember that Nandor Tanczos’ watch came from the Warehouse. This one is a Rolex Submariner worth something like $5000. My good friend and capitalist Maori colleague Shane Jones said to me: “Forget it. It is worth too much money.” Madam Speaker I have changed my mind and I make no apologies. 
I know that Michael is wondering what I might do with his hammer which I have with me. I listen to the bells and I look at the clock and I remember the song by Engelbert Humperdinck I think his name was and it went something like this: “Please release me let me go.” and of course the Everly Brothers sang “If I Had a Hammer”. 
My maiden speech—it is interesting that if I said that here in the House with different connotations people would say I was not PC: “He is a Maori a male and he is getting up and making a maiden speech.” and some of my kaumatua would wonder whether I had had an operation—was based on a poem by Banjo Paterson. He was an Australian bush poet and I think he wrote the poem “The Man From Snowy River”. However what I will talk about now is the thread of his poem in terms of my maiden speech. 
Banjo Paterson talked in another poem about the Maori wool. He talked about a Maori chief from Rooti-iti-au—I think he was a tipuna of Mita Ririnui. At that time many Maori tribes sold their wool to the bank manager. In those days they were getting ripped off by being paid tuppence for a pound—I think John Carter remembers this—and then the wool was shipped to London where it sold for five shillings a pound. Behold when the bales of wool were unloaded in London they were full of bloody big boulders. If that is not innovation for Maori then what is? We are still pulling the wool over their eyes and the bank manager is still looking for the chief from Rooti-iti-au. 
Perhaps that is symbolic of Maori process and procedures and of our being innovative. But we have become so politically correct and culturally correct that we now have Black Power filing a Treaty claim on the grounds that colonisation is inherently responsible for their criminal whakapapa. Next we will see the Mongrel Mob filing a claim for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. I think it was Sir Howard Morrison God bless him who sang the song “When will you ever learn; when will you ever learn.” 
One will always reflect upon the time served in this House and it has indeed been a privilege to serve my region and my constituents—Maori Pakeha Hainamana Chinese Indian Pacific Islander or any other citizens. I have always made it my commitment not to turn anybody away. 
Colleagues who have had the privilege to serve in this House will always take away some memories of special events. They can be humorous they can be good they can be bad they can be very bad and they can be bloody ugly. 
The humorous memory for me was a very humorous one and the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt was responsible for it. When I came into this House he said: “That member is contravening the Standing Orders. He is not allowed to wear his potae.” I looked at the honourable Speaker and said: “Taihoa. Point of order Mr Speaker. There is another member on the other side of the House from ACT and her name is Donna Awatere Huata. She is wearing a Zulu turban.”—and very colourful it was. I said: “If it is good enough for her to wear her turban in the House then it must be good enough for me to wear my potae.” I think I won the argument because I told him that in my culture Ngapuhi males who become chiefs and rangatira attend special events and they wear their potae but they were very very suspicious of the Speaker wearing a wig. Madam Speaker and Jonathan I know that you remember those events very very vividly. 
When members of parties in the House put forward policies and legislation that is good and beneficial for all our people rational debate takes place conducted with integrity and respect and that is good. But it is not so good when members resort to personal abuse and degrading comments and extend their comments to the wives families and partners of members of Parliament in order just to gain some cheap political points at the expense of people who cannot defend themselves. It is little wonder that people out there in the community have no respect for politicians or the democratic process. They hold us in contempt and regard us as being lower than real estate agents car dealers or journalists especially the ones in the press gallery. Just look at the thousands who do not enrol to vote. Surely that must tell us that we should be looking at the underlying reasons why. 
Of course those who are unelected those “members” who sit in the press gallery accountable to no one expect their big bosses and those further up the pecking order do not stand for election and they can attack any member of this House because they will not let the truth and the facts get in the way of a good story. They invent headlines all under the guise of the pretence of freedom of speech. I have never before seen the media in such a feeding frenzy and the two major newspapers and television networks so insatiable as they have been in their attack on the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Maoridom is asking why. Why does the media not run the ruler over every party and leader in this House and scrutinise them in the same way? They are the not the ones who are hiding maybe $100000 or $25000; they are the ones who are hiding millions. But they have experts to put their house in order so that nobody not even the newspapers can see the footprints or smell the fingerprints. This is the challenge for the media. If they want to run the ruler of morality over members of this House then they should run it over everybody beginning with the cockatoo in the House who is not here tonight. Maoridom is asking for this. 
I tell them that if they keep putting Winston Peters on the front page of the paper then they will guarantee he will get back into Parliament. That may be the strategy! 
You see we are not all dumb. The Maori nation is intelligent. Maori can read between the lines. They understand what the secret agenda is. They understand that there is an agenda here to politically execute one of our rangatiras from Ngati Wai and it is not going to work. They have tried it before; I know about that personally. New Zealand and New Zealanders deserve better than that. Madam Speaker perhaps it is time for this Parliament to define what freedom of speech actually means and also to define the responsibilities and the accountabilities that go with it. Parekura I am not going to wreck your table brother. 
Finally I thank my whanau and my friends. Some of them have come a long way to share a few words and if the Speaker allows it to sing a farewell song. To my family to Jacqui to Reece and Cadence my children we have weathered the storm of sewage politics together and we have emerged stronger and more determined. Kia kaha waku tamariki kei te aroha atu ki a korua. I love you all. 
To my long-time geriatric friends Gugi Walker Rim De Paul Janine and Audrey veteran members of the days of the Maori showbands the Quin Tikis the Maori Hi Fives the Maori Volcanics—thanks for the memories and for sharing some of the old-time favourites with us later. All of you here are all invited to my party even the bloody media. We will see what they say about that tomorrow. 
To our big chief Helen: nga mihi ki a koe te wahine toa o te motu. You will surely go down in the history of this nation as one of the greatest Prime Ministers that this country has ever had. People will look back in time to come put all the puhaehae—the discrimination—aside and will realise that we did really have one of the best Prime Ministers this nation has ever had. 
To Michael Cullen I say that he is as sharp as a bloody tack. And on Treaty settlements as General MacArthur said “Like hell I am retreating I am just advancing in a different direction.” 
To Jim Anderton who is my good friend and to Carole I thank them for their friendship over many years. To all my mates over here in the red and brown corner I say that it has been an honour and a privilege to be working with them. To my flatmate Damien O’Connor I say that I am sorry buddy but you are going to have to get somebody else to do your laundry. 
To my friends and colleagues in the blue corner to my whanaunga Clem Simich over there for his kind words and to Georgina kei te mihi atu. To Shane David Sandra John Georgina Tau Eric Phil Heatley and all the blokes and sheilas whom I was on the select committee with kei te mihi atu. I thank them for their humour and for their consideration and friendship when we participated in some of the harder questions on the select committees. 
But right now I acknowledge the real workers of this Parliament. If it was not for them the engine room in Parliament would collapse. My thanks go to the messengers security staff the Hansard staff to Paora and Nicole and to all the staff at Bellamy’s and Copperfields—I thank them for their service and support but I suggest they change the menu. To the drivers of VIP for Jimmy Twisl kei te mihi atu ki a korua. I thank them for their service friendship their good humour and sometimes their hard-case jokes. 
Sometimes wisdom and friendship transcends the adversarial nature of politics in this House. But I will share a few words with the member from Helensville: never count your chickens before they hatch keep it clean and may the best woman win. And so long it has been good to know you. No reira huri ana i to tatou Whare kei te mihi whanui atu ki a koutou katoa. 
[ 
So I acknowledge you all widely throughout our House 
.] 
This is part of my culture and I claim customary exemption Madam Speaker. I am going to finish off with a waiata—sorry Timoti! 
Pokarekare ana 
Nga wai o Matauri 
Whiti atu koe e hine 
Marino ana e. 
E hine e 
Hoki mai ra 
Ka mate ahau 
I te aroha e. 
[ 
The agitated  
Waters of Matauri  
Become calm 
When you cross over them lass. 
Oh dear lass 
Return to me 
For I shall die 
Of the love for you. 
] 
One people on the water 
One people on the land  
And we’re working all together 
And we’re working hand in hand. 
Sailing away  
sailing away 
New Zealand can do it  
sailing away. 
E hine e  
Hoki mai ra 
Ka mate ahau 
I te aroha e.  
Kia ora tatou farewell. God bless you all. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Labour) 
: 
 May I first acknowledge you Mr Deputy Speaker and my other colleagues who are presiding officers Marian Hobbs and Ross Robertson. It has been truly a privilege to work with you. I think we have as a team tried to ensure that the best traditions of this House have been upheld. I am sorry to ruin everybody’s fun—I guess you thought that last speech meant it was all over. But it is in fact the nature of Speakers to do that so I would hate to disappoint you in my final address. If you will just bear with me a few more minutes then you can all go and eat. 
I thank you though for allowing me a few minutes to be able to make a few comments before I retire. The valedictory speech is one of the few opportunities a member has to speak freely in the House though I am guess I am compelled to say “always within the Standing Orders Dover.”! The final address is however an opportunity for us all to reflect on our parliamentary experience and a very important opportunity to acknowledge those who have supported us. I think we have heard many fine speeches today that relay that experience. 
If there is one lesson to be learnt in this place however it is that you are as good as your colleagues and your staff. I have been particularly fortunate to work with the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark whose leadership skills are unparalleled as is her lifetime commitment to the service of the people of New Zealand. 
I regard myself also as fortunate to have worked with the Deputy Prime Minister the Hon Michael Cullen as a colleague in Cabinet. He was never ever able to find enough money for any of my portfolios but then I realised he treated all my colleagues in much the same way. As the economy goes through its normal or perhaps not so normal cycles of boom and bust we have come to appreciate his prudent management. It is in his role as Leader of the House however that I greatly admire his skills. Michael Cullen is truly a great New Zealand parliamentarian and perhaps one of the few we have had in recent times. The roles of Leader of the House and Opposition Leader of the House are not always understood by many people yet it is the ability of the people in those roles that determines that Parliament runs in an orderly if at times very contestable fashion so I thank both of you. 
I also acknowledge my former colleagues in Cabinet who provided tremendous support to me at all times. It is difficult for many people to understand the contestable environment that exists within Cabinet or the pressure to perform in a timely fashion. It is a strong sense of common purpose that ensures you stay together through good and not so good times. The backbone of support however comes from your caucus which is ever ready to challenge you and to keep you in touch with the reality that sometimes you can forget so I thank them in particular. 
Parliament could not function without the commitment to undertake the select committee work which is really the heart of Parliament now in many ways. That work is undertaken by members and not by Ministers except on a few occasions. In this respect I do wish to acknowledge Tim Barnett who chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee when I was Associate Minister of Justice. He always pushed the envelope beyond everyone’s comfort zone but he was always ready to work to ensure eventually an acceptable solution would be found. 
If the support of colleagues is essential so is the support from staff. I have been blessed with a group of amazing people who have worked tirelessly to ensure I could do my job. Mike Fokker and Rose Rigarlsford deserve specific mention because they made sure my diary and I were always coordinated. This is not always an easy task. My communications staff worked miracles to ensure the intent of the policies was communicated if not always well received or understood. It is not an easy job they have. Crowd control which is not normally in a communications job description has been part of the reality of the job of my current communications adviser Rose Hart and she has managed to keep the lanes reasonably clear for those of you who wished to come to the Chamber. The role of political adviser is an equally difficult one but I was fortunate to have exceptionally dedicated people who filled that role. The role is often difficult because it is political advisers who cop the criticism that others do not have the courage to say to your face. Mine however always remained focused on our goal and played a big part in whatever policy success I achieved. 
As a Minister and a Speaker you are also as good as the advice you get from public officials and I am pleased that so many colleagues today have acknowledged their contribution. I have had the privilege of working with some exceptional people whose professionalism and commitment to the Public Service is something we should all be grateful for. I also thank them for their patience. I know I was considered by some as the Minister from hell because of the pace I set and I did seem to act in an enormous number of portfolios on a temporary basis that were somehow falling behind—thank you Prime Minister! When I took up my first role as a Minister I was also given some extremely good advice by a very senior public official. That advice was simply to not waste any time as it passed all too quickly—and he had seen many Ministers pass through his capable hands. He was a very wise man to whom I shall always feel grateful. Certainly the last 9 years have gone by very quickly. I shall also acknowledge elsewhere the invaluable service of the Clerk’s Office the Parliamentary Service and those who ensure that this institution runs as well as it does. 
I thank and acknowledge the people of Tauranga who have supported me over the past 9 years. We all know that Tauranga cannot be considered to be a Labour stronghold or even a marginal seat though the electorate does tend to vote for Labour in high numbers on the list vote. It is a city I have worked hard for and I have been very lucky to be able to work with Smart Growth the mayors of Tauranga City and the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and the chair of Environment Bay of Plenty given their commitment to the region. In that respect I thank all of my Cabinet colleagues who were so forbearing when. as a Minister I ensured that the officials who came from Tauranga had a good hearing by their officers in Wellington. I greatly valued the opportunity to work with them for the good of the community as a whole. 
I sometimes hear people comment about the role of list members. It is a new role in our institution and one that is evolving and developing but it is certainly not a second-class role as some constituency members would try to have it on occasions. I think it is an issue we will have to address in future. I will continue from Tauranga to watch the progress of that city in the future with some interest. 
Finally I say a sincere heartfelt thankyou to my family. They are not here today because as so often happens in political life family and political diaries just cannot be coordinated. I know however that they will be viewing this address and judging it in the comfort of their own home. The struggle to televise Parliament almost seems worth it on occasions such as this and as they have assured me they will see the unedited version. Their unconditional love support and advice especially that from my parents have kept me sane and given me the strength to see the job through to the end. So I say a very heartfelt and sincere thankyou. 
When preparing this valedictory statement I like so many of my colleagues went back with some trepidation to look at what I had said in my maiden speech—a ridiculous name for a speech to someone like me. I wanted to see whether I had achieved the goals I had set out to achieve. I very quickly realised however that it is for others to make that assessment not for me. I am satisfied though that given the necessary democratic constraints of coalition Government little time was wasted. More important I think my colleagues and I have achieved a better policy balance that has recognised the need for a strong Public Service infrastructure. The market will always have a proper role in the economy but it must always be balanced by democratic government. The current financial crisis has demonstrated the truth of this reality. Part of the reconstruction of that Public Service infrastructure has been the strengthening of such institutions as unions non-governmental organisations and lobby groups that now demand the right to participate in decisions that affect them. How to find better ways for such participation will be a challenge for future Parliaments to address. 
I noted in my maiden speech a concern for the rights of women. The struggle for equality has been the main thread throughout my life. It cannot be denied that much progress has been made. It also cannot be denied that that progress has come with women adapting to the system. There is still no fundamental recognition that equality means equality of difference not equality for women to be like men. This will be the next major challenge. Can the experience of women be incorporated in such a way that we have real choices that extend beyond survival within a system still controlled by the male reality? A practical example of that is the way we organise the business of Parliament. We have made progress. We are trying to accommodate school holidays. We now have a room for breastfeeding and we have a really good-quality childcare centre. This is all good progress but we have not fundamentally looked at the issue of work-life balance which could benefit not only women but also men. That is one of those big scary ideas we have yet to have the courage to face. 
I must also note that Parliament has come a long way towards being more representative but it cannot be considered to be truly representative while it remains so hard for people with a disability to work here. I acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for her tireless work in that respect. In this institution people are helpful and that is always appreciated but it is real change that is required. I have tried to ensure that those with a hearing impairment will get some relief with the new sound system—you do not even notice it any longer. The price for working in this wonderful old building is that those with disabilities still come in the back door or struggle with heavy doors that are likely to bite their fingers off. Again we adapt to the institution which is yet to fundamentally recognise the need for real change. 
Finally I want to make a few comments on Parliament and my role as Speaker. Over the 3 and a bit years that I have held the role I have formed not surprisingly some views. As Speaker you have little opportunity to actually speak—I had not thought about that when I took the job. Otherwise of course you are rightly accused of participating in the debate. The self-control I have exercised has been extraordinarily uncharacteristic as I have confined my comments to “Order!” and “Would the member please leave the Chamber.” I therefore cannot resist the opportunity to share just a very few reflections on the role. 
First I thank those who have supported me in it. Apart from the two wonderful Roses—Rose Rigarlsford and Rose Hart—Roland Todd always makes sure my numbers are right. Pam Reader and Nina Sudiono-Price have ensured that the business of Parliament is conducted through the Speaker’s office in a friendly and an orderly way. The Clerk and her office ensure that the business of Parliament is conducted in an impartial and efficient manner. Perhaps the highest compliment that can be paid to the office is to say its advice can be relied on. I also acknowledge the unsung heroes of the House the Sergeant-at-Arms whom I nearly had to use once—just to see what he really would do—and his army of messengers who ensure that all members are well watered and that their notes to each other are delivered with speed; I often wonder what is in them. 
The role of Speaker has given me a unique opportunity to understand better what it is that makes our democratic form of government work so I give you special thanks for giving me that privilege. I have endeavoured in the role to achieve two things: to make Parliament more accessible and to make the administration of Parliament more transparent and efficient. The televising of Parliament was an important part of this project and it still has a long way to go to reach its full potential. We are in this institution visited by thousands of people every year and all of the education tour and security staff do a wonderful job of making that a positive experience. We need to invest more however in the promotion of Parliament as an institution. There are so many creative ways we could introduce improvements into it so the people of New Zealand are able to have a greater appreciation of their Parliament. That is not a Budget bid—it is all right! But I hope that future Speakers will be hearing what I am saying. 
The task of bringing transparency and efficiency to the administration of Parliament was thrust on me soon after I took office and I confess that I had no understanding of the nature of this role when I accepted it. The task resulted from accusations made by some members in this House that I was personally corrupt. I have written fully in another place about my journey of discovery into the administration of Parliament and the role of the Speaker so I will not repeat myself here. After 3 years of work however I believe that progress has been made though much work is still to be done. I thank the members on the Parliamentary Service Commission for the extra tireless work they put into it—and I see Anne Tolley smiling and Tim Barnett nodding amongst others—because it was truly appreciated and the advisory role to the Speaker I think was fulfilled extraordinarily professionally by all members. I have confidence that in future the work of the administration will continue to improve with the support of members who recognise that we as members of Parliament must also be accountable. 
I will end on an observation about the notion of the independence of the Speaker. I am frequently asked this question: how can the Speaker be independent and a member of a party? The question is normally raised in the context of question time. I long ago realised that the Speaker is seen as fair and impartial if he or she agrees with the member who has raised the point of order—which is usually of course not a point of order. Like any referee I agree that one cannot win but must do the best one can. I must say however that most referees have a greater range of penalties than any of the Speakers in this House can exercise and the fantasy mind writs large in some question times as to what one could do to exercise some control. I thank all those members of the public who made suggestions regarding equipment that could be used to assist Speakers in their job—most of it illegal. However all Speakers face similar problems and when the Governor-General kindly had a dinner for all “surviving” Speakers—if I can put it like that—it was interesting even across the parties to find that we had all encountered the same issues. I will say though that MMP has made the task more complex. 
I intend to resist the temptation to grade rate or even comment on the behaviour of members towards each other or the Speaker. But the public do notice members’ behaviour and they let me know daily what they think about it. That is why a greater understanding of Parliament would benefit everyone. As I have said on many occasions question time is not truth seeking; that is done through written questions and official information requests. Question time is about political performance. It is the testing of political positions and the ability of individuals to stand up to the test. It is an important part of our democracy and I have no doubt of course that it could be conducted in a less abusive manner. But that is in the hands of members. If I had enforced the Standing Orders strictly as I have been exhorted to do on occasions then all I can say is that the House would have been half empty and the game would have taken three times as long. 
I should be grateful however as we all should be that we are the beneficiaries of such an accountable democratic Parliament. It is the obligation and responsibility of each of us who has the privilege of serving in this House to maintain and enhance our Parliament in whatever role we may find ourselves in because each role we hold is extremely important. I am pleased to be leaving to undertake a new challenge where I will be paid to lecture you will be pleased to know—I was told I was not paid to do that here in this House—but I must say that I do not regret a minute of the opportunity I have been given to serve. Kia ora. Thank you. 
Sitting suspended from 6.35 p.m. to 7.35 p.m. 
Walking Access Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 New Zealand Walking Access Commission ( 
continued 
)  
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I was sorry to miss the debate last evening. I was involved actually in talking about walking access in Hawke’s Bay. 
I will take a short call on Part 2. We looked at Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” at some previous time but Part 2 is the nuts and bolts of how this Walking Access Bill is to work. It appoints a new Crown entity which is to be called the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. Its responsibilities will be across a range of different areas. For a start the Walking Access Commission will be responsible for negotiating access where there is some difficulty about access. This can arise in a range of ways. There can be misapprehensions on the part of landowners as to what they own or have—whether there is a marginal strip or egress there or maybe some public land for which access across private property is required. There may be misapprehensions on the part of members of the public who may think they have a right to have access in certain areas. 
The Walking Access Commission will be tasked with negotiation. We need to stress as we have done in other places that this access is essentially determined by negotiation. The Walking Access Commission will also be responsible for setting out a code of conduct. One of the issues—it is probably the primary issue—that has seen a diminution of walking access rights has been the fact that many landowners have just got tired of dealing with the public. They have got tired of the ways in which the public have left gates open and have not acknowledged common farming practice or landholding practice. Farmers have been concerned about the presence of dogs the spread of Taenia ovis and biosecurity issues. 
It is interesting that the only access to some of the highland lakes in Otago like the Upper Poolburn Dam is by horse a long walk or four-wheel drive but now right around the lake there are significant areas— 
Hon David Carter 
: Chopper! 
ERIC ROY 
: —or chopper; Mr Carter’s chopper—of broom and gorse starting to spring up. How did that get there? It might have fallen off the vehicles that were there. But no most people who fish up there or a significant number of them actually fish with worms. They get a little bit of soil gather up some worms go up there and when they have finished they tip their worms out. Worms are good in the high country. But people are putting contaminated soil there. 
So a raft of things out there are happening but at the end of the day the farmer is saying that that is enough. My own brother-in-law who used to farm on the banks of the Mataura River—an area renowned for its brown trout and where there has been goodwill and good access—has just said that he has had enough of people who do not respect what he wants to do. I ask members how we resolve that. We do so by setting up a code of conduct so that there can be a clear understanding of the responsibilities of people who want access to the land. The Walking Access Commission will be responsible for that. 
There will also be a body that as I understand it will have a responsibility for holding a database of public land where walkways exist and where public egress exists. That will be a developing thing. In some ways this will be a rather arduous and time-consuming task. The amount of marginal strips that are laid down is somewhat different in the public’s impression from what actually exists out there. I quote Brian Hayes who was on the first walking access panel with me in saying that marginal strips may exist on only about 70 percent of the places where they are expected to be. The Walking Access Commission will have to identify those and where there is a need it will have to enter into negotiation and establish resolutions where there is conflict. 
The Walking Access Commission also has a responsibility as stated in clause 9 delegated to it to negotiate on things that are not entirely related to access but are associated with access. Those issues are the use of vehicles firearms dogs bicycles or whatever. Quite often when people are wanting access—for example in the duck-shooting season or to the high country for hunting—there is the carriage of firearms or dogs and sometimes there is the use of four-wheel drives. The commission also has a responsibility to be appointed to do those negotiations. Its role is quite a distinct and important one. 
It is quite a significant step forward that we have a commission that can actually go and do the negotiation. The commission’s credibility and involvement in this will be an important part in actually securing those opportunities for New Zealanders to participate. As we have said in other places in this debate it has been New Zealanders’ birthright and expectation that they have this opportunity to enjoy the public resources of New Zealand. For that they need access. The Walking Access Commission will be a significant step forward from what we have had in the past. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 agreed to.  
Part 4 agreed to.  
Schedule agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will take a call on these clauses to record the fact of the changes that have been made by John Acland and the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group. I acknowledge his presence here tonight. I say that the Walking Access Bill is a better bill for the involvement of the committee that went around New Zealand and I think the Minister in the chair the Hon Damien O’Connor acknowledges that as does the Opposition. 
I want to record again the fact that when this bill was introduced the National Opposition opposed it because of the interference it had on property rights. Of course one of the things the National Party takes a keen interest in is property rights and I have to say that although there are still some parts of this legislation that we will need to be keeping a keen eye on and a careful watch over the issue of property rights and the way it has been developed are a credit to those who have been involved. Obviously there was keen note taken of the issues that were raised. 
It is commendable that the bill has come back in the form it has. The Local Government and Environment Committee obviously picked up on the issues raised in order to make the changes it has. In hindsight—and hindsight is always a wonderful thing; one generally gets it right 100 percent of the time—maybe the Government should not have introduced the bill in the form it was introduced but to its credit it has accepted the recommendations that have been made. That has meant that Parliament can now accept the bill in the form it is in. 
Having said that I note that there are one or two things during this part of the debate that we will have to keep a careful watch over. The bill does have the potential of creating yet another bureaucracy and another whole lot of rules and regulations. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh! 
JOHN CARTER 
: We certainly do not want to end up with something like the Department of Building and Housing which Clayton Cosgrove administered for such a long time because that will have to be something that in the future we dismantle. We do not want to have to go through something that gets established and then dismantled again. I say to this Parliament that we need to urge caution as we put this bill through. The intention of it is right but it certainly has the possibility of allowing extra costs to go on to the community and indeed rather than creating the opportunity for people to have rest and recreation which is what it is for it could potentially create a whole lot of frustration. I make those points particularly when we look at the codes of compliance and the impost the legislation could put on local government. There are some real risks around that part of the legislation. 
I want those comments to be recorded in  
Hansard 
 so that in time people who are involved in administering this bill can look back and see the wise words of the Opposition and realise that actually the Opposition was on top of it and that these sorts of issues need to be monitored carefully. One of the things we often do in this Parliament is pass legislation without actually thinking forward 10 or 20 years to see what its likely impact will be. We need to treat this with caution as we move forward. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am somewhat motivated by the words of John Carter in regard to one or two issues here. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You must be joking. 
ERIC ROY 
: Well Mr Cosgrove may laugh but there are some significant issues here. It very much depends on the expectation of the public and how quickly they want this resolved and on the attitude of landowners and how willing they are to enter into negotiation. It very much depends on those people who have set up structures for private capture for pecuniary gain—and at this stage those people are in a minority—and whether that will be an increasing trend on whether negotiation will resolve that and on how that might tie up the Walking Access Commission. Those things need to be said. I think it also needs to be said quite clearly that if the Walking Access Bill does not resolve some of those issues we will be back in this House facing some debate on some amendments to this bill. We need to put that on record. 
The first clause the title clause is what we are we are debating. The bill is entitled the Walking Access Bill and that might conjure up all kinds of things in people’s minds but essentially the bill is about negotiated access. That is the first point that we need to put out there. There has been a degree of goodwill. It has been about a 5-year journey since the first ministerial reference group set up by Jim Sutton met. 
I have said before in this debate that I think Jim Sutton made an error of judgment when he said he wanted the group to look at the wander-at-will provisions because that just got all the landowners’ backs up. We lost that goodwill for quite a period of time but we have now got it back on track. This bill states clearly that it is about access by negotiation. That fact is not embraced in the title but it is embraced in about seven places where that terminology is used. That needs to be quite clear. We are recognising property rights; it is a walking access bill. 
We are also talking about clause 2 the commencement clause. This bill has been a 5-year journey and I think there is a sense of expectation on the part of the recreational community that this will be advanced. I am not sure how long after the bill is enacted—and the Minister in the chair the Hon Damien O’Connor might like to respond—that the Walking Access Commission will be set up. The bill is also very light on how those people are appointed and what skill sets they have. It is even relatively vague about the numbers—somewhere between five and eight. I can understand that we do not want the Walking Access Commission to fall over if one member becomes indisposed is not able to attend or whatever but the bill is quite vague on those matters. 
Although clause 2 “Commencement” states that the bill will be enacted it does not mention what the time frames are for the Walking Access Commission to be set up and operational or its terms of reference. The fleshing out of all of that is not in the bill. However the National Party is supporting this bill. We think it is a step forward. We look forward to the third reading. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Walking Access Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank the Opposition members in the House for that comprehensive debate on what is a short but important bill. I appreciate and acknowledge the support of the vast majority of members in this House. 
This is an important bill as it goes to the heart of what most New Zealanders regard as their fundamental birthright—that is the right to walk in and enjoy the great outdoors. The bill builds on the legacy of public access established over the last century and a half and it creates the New Zealand Walking Access Commission to clarify promote and extend walking access in New Zealand. Hundreds of New Zealanders have shared their views on walking access issues over the last 5 years and this bill is a significant milestone. 
The process began with my predecessor the Hon Jim Sutton who as Minister for Rural Affairs took the issue of walking access to heart. Jim pushed the project forward when he set up the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group in 2003. The group canvassed public opinion far and wide on how best to promote walking access to our rivers lakes coastline forests mountains and countryside. The reference group’s efforts laid the groundwork for the Walking Access Consultation Panel which was set up in 2003 after a change in policy placing greater emphasis on the negotiation of access over private land. 
One person Brian Hayes a former Registrar-General of Land played a quiet but valuable role in supporting the work of the reference group and the consultation panel with his in-depth legal research. Mr Hayes’ knowledge of such things as water margin access the ownership of riverbeds and the status of unformed legal roads in New Zealand is without equal. His body of research is enshrined in a book that was launched in the Beehive last month and I encourage anyone who is interested in this area to buy that book. It soon became clear that although existing water margin reservations were extensive they were far from complete. Extending water margin reservations and remedying the effects of erosion were going to affect property rights and therefore was best done through negotiation with affected landowners. Creating new cross-country access to the coast lakes rivers and other public land was also deemed necessary in order to uphold the expectations of New Zealanders who enjoy the outdoors. 
Eventually it became apparent that extending access and remedying the effects of erosion while respecting private property rights would be achieved where needed through a robust process of negotiation. In coming to this conclusion the Government also recognised landholders’ concerns about vandalism damage to plants fences gates and stock and the threat to security posed by strangers crossing their land. That was the clear perception of many many rural dwellers. 
A fundamental issue was the conflict between public aspirations and private and public property rights. This bill extends opportunities for the public to enjoy walking access to the countryside while protecting the rights of private property owners. Some people may think the bill puts too much weight and reliance on the negotiation of walking access over private land. I disagree as did the Walking Access Consultation Panel. The select committee also disagreed by a clear majority and its report back on the bill supported the process of negotiation. Forcing people to give up their rights flies in the face of natural justice and would only antagonise those who were happy to give permission in the past. 
Access to the outdoors is a fundamental aspect of our culture as New Zealanders. It is a source of exercise of recreation and of inspiration. As well as providing for the negotiation of new walking access this bill provides for enhanced provision of information about what already exists. It will be easier for people to find out where they can legally go to enjoy the great outdoors under existing agreements and easements. What has been missing is a single point of reference for the leadership coordination extension and improvement of walking access. By establishing the Walking Access Commission this bill provides the structure and mechanisms needed to advance walking access in New Zealand. Currently it has a budget of $2 million a year which is modest but we think it will be an efficient and effective amount to undertake all the tasks which was a question that was asked in the Committee stage. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How much? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It is $2 million. 
The commission will need to develop strong collaborative relationships with allied agencies. It will also need to build and maintain a solid and trusting relationship with recreation farming and local government stakeholders. As a new Crown entity the commission will have its hands full in the early stages as it comes to grips with its roles and with public expectations. Once it is up and running I expect the commission to turn its attention quickly to developing a national strategy on walking access identifying existing access and deciding its priorities for the negotiation of walking access over private land where that is necessary. 
Important tasks will be to develop a code of responsible conduct for walkways to develop its research and education capacity and to establish processes for resolving disputes over walking access. The extension and improvement of walking access will bring long-term benefits to our country in terms of increased social capital and an enhanced sense of national identity along of course with a healthier and more active nation. 
Before concluding I express my gratitude to the members of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group those on the Walking Access Consultation Panel and those on the Walking Access Advisory Board for the experience and hard work they put in to bring this policy to a conclusion. I acknowledge in particular the contribution made by John Acland who has had to spend a couple of days longer in Wellington to see this bill through in his commitment to the principles of walking access and his expertise as the chair of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group the chair of the Walking Access Consultation Panel and on the interim advisory board for the commission. I say thank you to John. He has been the vital glue that held the various strands together. His competent leadership gave the process credibility during the two extensive rounds of consultation sometimes in the face of extreme provocation I have to say particularly during an incident in Marlborough. 
I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Gottlieb Braun-Elwert for his contribution as a member of the former reference group and as an outstanding mountaineer and guide. His sudden death was a blow to all outdoor enthusiasts. Although not everyone agreed with his vision on public access no one could doubt his sincerity and enthusiasm for the principles and outcomes that this legislation will deliver for all New Zealanders into the future. 
I thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their work on the bill. They listened to recommendations through submissions made to the select committee and they made the changes necessary. I would like in particular to thank Moana Mackey for her skill as chair of the committee and Martin Gallagher for his enthusiastic and patriotic contribution to this debate and at the select committee. 
I also acknowledge the contribution of my parliamentary colleague Eric Roy who served as a member of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group in the first place while not a member of Parliament. Eric helped the group understand the implications of the policy for landholders and brought a pragmatic approach to the group’s work. I say kia ora to him. I am grateful to all the submitters who took the time to make their views known during both consultation processes. They helped influence and shape the policy and the bill in ways not always obvious to those on the edge of the policy process. Finally I acknowledge the support that the officials have given to this process. They have faced some challenging times over a process of 5 years. I thank Jim Sutton for his vision in raising this issue early on. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National supports the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. We do so because we finally see common sense prevail in what has been a very difficult and emotive debate. I acknowledge also the contribution of John Acland who has been involved in this for a long time and has certainly at times incurred the wrath of many of our farmers. My thanks also go to Eric Roy for his involvement in the process. He was an inspired choice by Jim Sutton the predecessor of Damien O’Connor as the Minister for Rural Affairs because when he was not a member of Parliament he was able to be on the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group and provide the very good common-sense perspective of a landowner. 
The reason this debate has been so destructive is that it threatened the sanctity of private property rights. It threatened to create a real divide between rural New Zealand and urban New Zealand. I am pleased today that finally common-sense legislation has been presented by the Labour Government. In my mind this became a personal crusade of the Prime Minister Helen Clark. I have no idea why she developed this personal crusade but there is a strong rumour around the high country of the South Island that on one of her regular expeditions around the high country she and her tramping group were denied access to a farming property. I suspect she was denied access not because the farmer did not want them on the land enjoying his farm but because the group never bothered to ask the farmer for permission in the first place. That is a strong rumour. It is hard to prove but it is certainly one that one picks up every time one goes through Tekapo. This argument should be all about respecting private property rights something that Ms Moroney finds very very difficult to do. 
Today we finally see a good way of delivering better public access to our public estate. But what this bill does—and it does it well—is that it finally respects the private property rights of farmers. They like people enjoying access to their farms. I say to Sue Moroney that the only thing they want is the privilege of being asked first. That is all that was required in this debate. That is what John Acland and his reference group finally found when they went and spoke to the thousands of landowners throughout the country who found the original proposal by Jim Sutton and Helen Clark absolutely abhorrent to private property rights and to democracy. What we see today is a strategic back-down. It is a big back-down for the Labour Government. 
Lesley Soper 
: Just nonsense! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Ms Soper has not been here long enough to actually understand the issue and know the derision and division it caused throughout rural New Zealand. Tonight we have a pragmatic solution. The important thing Ms Moroney needs to realise is that it is actually the policy that National advanced at the very outset of this debate. We said that this is what we wanted to do. One has to respect private property rights and at least have the ability the common sense and the decency to ask permission if one wants to go on private land. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: You’ve upset them over the Prime Minister—do it again! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is very easy to upset them over the Prime Minister. It is also quite a lot of fun. 
The other thing this bill does is acknowledge that in some cases access to a public resource is denied because it is effectively encompassed by private land. Legislation has finally said that in those circumstances we need to do what National always said we need to do: enter into good-faith negotiations with the landowner and find a solution. Finally after 5 6 or 7 years of acrimony and division we have the solution that National advocated in the first place and that is why it is with pleasure that National finally supports this legislation. 
But the question that Sue Moroney can answer when she next takes a call is why Helen Clark caused all this angst. Why did the farmers throughout New Zealand tie orange ribbons round their gates their trees and any other structure they could attach a ribbon to in order to signal to New Zealanders that private property rights were important? Where Helen Clark went wrong and where Sue Moroney is now going wrong is that it did not become a debate between rural New Zealand and urban New Zealand because urban New Zealanders also had a respect for private property rights. They knew that what the Government Jim Sutton and Helen Clark originally proposed was wrong and they joined in supporting the farmers of New Zealand. It is with the support of farmers and all common-sense New Zealanders that tonight we are getting the sort of legislation that is required to address this issue. 
I am pleased the stupid fight is now over. I am pleased that Labour and Helen Clark have finally seen common sense. I am pleased to be part of a debate that sees the legislation passed in the dying days of a Labour Government—there are 6½ weeks to go before the general election—and it will be good to get this one off the agenda. But most important I support the Walking Access Bill because it finally recognises the importance of private property rights. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. For us in the Maori Party this bill goes back to June 2005 when Labour flush from having stolen the foreshore and seabed from Maori thought it would take a shot at the rest of the country by opening up access to rivers lakes and conservation lands in its walking access report. Farmers however saw it as a blatant attack on their private property rights and the rural heartland said: “Hell no we will not be having all and sundry traipsing through our farms leaving gates open scaring the animals endangering lives and leaving the blame at our back door.” Although the Maori Party was just new at that time Tariana Turia nailed it in the House when she said that this bill would have been the death knell for Labour’s embattled Maori MPs if they allowed it to go through. She said it would be a case of another theft by a Government that clearly does not care about whom in the end it is upsetting—a Government that is obviously counting the votes and must think that more people are willing to walk over other people’s properties and to claim waters that do not belong to them. 
What followed is history now but Federated Farmers ran a successful campaign about the protection of property rights enabling many hapu and iwi to again challenge the Government theft of Maori lands. The Government backed down—for a while at least—then hello a few months ago it sneaked it in again through this new bill by establishing the New Zealand Walking Access Commission to oversee public access to the coast lakes and rivers. The bill has some good bits in it like requiring the commission to have at least one member with knowledge of tikanga Maori although we would rather it required at least one member who is Maori to negotiate with private landowners and with the appropriate Maori landowners. 
There are some good ideas there but a number of submissions raised major concerns for us such as the one from Waikato that said: “Once again I see blatant legislative theft creeping up on the last 6 percent of land we have in this country.” Another one from Taupo said: “The big issue for us is that this absolutely targets Maori land for access for New Zealanders.” And a submission from Ngai Tahu said it would not support opening up land if it meant possible desecration of taonga and damage to significant sites. All of the Maori submissions on this bill refer to the fact that Te Tiriti o Waitangi had actually guaranteed “te tino rangatiratanga … o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa”—the full and undisturbed possession of their lands estates fisheries and other properties. 
Maori submitters also called on sites of cultural importance to Maori to be respected recognised and protected with Ngai Tahu going further by recommending that permission be given before information on significant sites is published or that those sites be exempted from the bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee of course ignored all of those requests. Ngai Tahu also recommended that the code of responsible conduct include mandatory consultation with tangata whenua and appropriate standards of behaviour. But all the bill does is require the code to include information on Maori relationships with land and waterways. 
Maori also made other recommendations that were ignored like putting a Treaty clause into the bill and increasing Maori representation on the commission. Last week Angeline Greensill Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato told me a simple home truth: we are given two ears and one mouth for a very simple reason—to listen twice as much as we talk. This bill turns that truth upside down because it is all talk and no ears. There were 136 submissions on this bill but what we have ended up with seems to be just another template from the Government’s policy shop. 
The philosophy behind this bill is sound; the kaupapa of enabling New Zealanders to have access to Aotearoa is sound. But the detail is sadly lacking. In the same way that this Labour Government refused to listen to the tens of thousands of Maori who marched to Wellington to try to stop the theft of the foreshore and seabed so too has this Labour Government refused to heed the call from Maori about proper negotiation for access to their ancestral lands and waters. 
In the same way that the Maori Party was born out of a determination to defend Maori rights and advance Maori interests so too will we refuse to support this bill today. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I want to congratulate the Minister in charge of the bill Damien O’Connor and his officials whom I know to be good practical people not carried away with ideology and working in dreamtime. I congratulate him on bringing together a bill that even Opposition members say is sensible and workable. I acknowledge also Mr Eric Roy who worked over many years to bring a bill like this to fruition and the other people who have worked on it including I might add Mr Bryce Johnson of the New Zealand Fish and Game Council. 
We in New Zealand First believe that the enviable lifestyle New Zealanders see as their right should be preserved. I said in the opening speeches that I have a brother who has a farm under family ownership just him and his son that covers 10 farms which was the norm when I was a—well I am still a reasonably young man—younger man. Things are changing out there in the rural community. The days have gone when people could go to several farmers down one road and if access was refused to a river stream or lake for some reason or another they could go to the next farmer to get access. Those days have gone because in many cases a number of farms are covered by one owner and it could be an owner who does not live anywhere near the property—which is not my brother’s case I hasten to add. 
When we look at private rights—and I know I am going to get picked up for this—it is a fact that we must also look at public rights. We must look to where many of us came from and we do not want to go back there. We must not go back and we cannot go back to the days of grace and favour where those in an enviable position or who were wealthy or were huge landowners gave their favour to people to go on to their land or whatever. I for one—and I am moving a little bit ahead of my caucus and I acknowledge that and I am also moving ahead of this bill—look forward to the day and I think we will get there when access is given to iconic places around New Zealand that are registered surveyed and marked with its own rights and with relevant trespass provisions and rules on what people can do and carry on those access ways. I think that we will get there but I am not whipping the cat over that. This is an amazing first start which is why I congratulated the Minister in my first speech. 
I acknowledge the former deputy mayor of Hamilton Martin Gallagher who fought long and hard in quite an acrimonious atmosphere to have public access around one of the very few waterways we actually enjoy in Hamilton. If members wants to have a laugh that is OK but we have a peat lake in Hamilton which we are pretty proud of are we not Mr Gallagher? He fought to have a walkway. Even today there are a couple of places where agreement could not be reached and the wooden walkway actually extends out on to the waterway and then comes back on to land. I do not know of any problems surrounding that. I do not think the burglary rate has increased. I do not think those local people suffer any problems because that walkway is there. But what I do know and what is important as far as this bill is concerned is that thousands upon thousands of Hamiltonians walk around that lake and enjoy that lake which they could not do so before. 
That is the case here. It is not about arguing about private property rights. It is about—and this bill sets up the New Zealand Walking Access Commission—reaching agreement in a modern world so that the increasing urban society and the decreasing rural society in this country can both reach their mutual aims. It is not about one group being pitted against the other. I am sad if some people tend to see it that way. I think we should look on these things as a modern approach to something that in the past was taken for granted when our population was far more biased towards the rural environment and our population was far smaller. A bill such as this was simply not needed in those days but just because it was not needed then does not mean to say that it is not needed now. So that is where I would like to see it go to. 
I think that there is little danger that this will turn into a bureaucracy. Mr Roy said it is a bit light on saying who will go on the Walking Access Commission but I would like to say from my farming experience that I have confidence that they will be practical people versed in the ways of the community that they serve and who have the common interest at heart. I am keen to see boards be it Department of Conservation or any other board around the country taking a closer interest in the people who will be on the commission whether they be from fish and game forest and bird whether they are hunters and that sort of thing and to encourage those sorts of people to be on the commission so that there is a wider perspective. It is not just about conservation it is not just about hunters; it is about serving the needs of our community in the widest possible sense. We believe this bill goes a huge way towards that. 
We had critics in my own caucus who raised the sorts of questions that are being raised here but this bill—as we went through it—satisfied them that this actually was a modern way forward and something that was absolutely necessary. This is the last speech New Zealand First intends to make on this bill. We heartily applaud this bill and look forward to supporting it into law. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 It is good to have worked on the Walking Access Bill and to see an outcome that is quite positive. This bill is unique in many ways. The legislation started from a very polarised position yet it now has a high degree of agreement. It is unique in that on a night when we have had nine valedictories a good number of members in the House are being abstemious and are here to debate the merits of this bill when there are other attractions socially that might draw them away—which shows the degree of seriousness about this bill. The bill is unique in the context that as I said it started with quite a high degree of divergence of opinion and has gone entirely through the Committee stage without amendment nor with any amendments being tabled and lost. That is unique in the Committee stage. It is also unique in that through the various debates on the various stages of the bill I have imparted a bit of information about marginal strips the Queen’s Chain and the legislative process that has gone around the establishment of the rights of New Zealanders. 
There has been no substantial attempts to develop or enhance to this level the access opportunities for New Zealanders since 1891. John McKenzie was the Minister of Lands under the Ballance Government and was an interesting character in himself. He shares a lot of similarities to my grandfather whom I will get to in just a minute to show members my perspective on this. He came to New Zealand from Scotland he spoke only Gaelic and he wanted to develop a New Zealand for which there was a degree of utilitarian approach there was no favouritism and there were no riparian rights. He was Minister of Lands under Ballance. He broke up some of the great squattocracies of the South Island and did it in a way that created the family farm in 1891. There is a book that members who are interested in this should read called  
Lands for the People? 
. John McKenzie became a member of a school committee to learn about representation before he stood for Waihemo. Anyone driving through Palmerston will see a monument to John McKenzie on top of the hill on the seaward side of Palmerston. It is not since 1891 that there has been any substantial attempt to move access opportunities for New Zealanders forward. 
I said that John McKenzie had a lot of similarities to my grandfather and his expectations. When I was on the Walking Access Consultation Panel we had to introduce ourselves and I told this story which is true that my great-grandfather John Roy in Ballybogey in County Antrim about 1857 or 1858 just after the end of the potato famine was about to be apprehended by a gamekeeper for poaching rabbits and he shot the gamekeeper. He volunteered to leave at that stage went to Canada and when gold was discovered in Gabriels Gully he came to New Zealand. We all have stories like that. It is an intrinsic part of me as a landowner who wants fairness and recognition of property rights and also as a hunter-gatherer and as a person who enjoys recreation to say there is a balance. And that is the unique part of this bill: that after some reasonably extreme positions taken and lined up in the first instance there has been a lot of agreement in this House in recognising both property rights and the right and the heritage of New Zealanders to enjoy the outdoors and the public resources that are so special. 
New Zealand is unique in the world in that respect. There are very few countries that have the absence of riparian rights to the extent that New Zealand has. To my knowledge no other country has laid down so many opportunities for access. There is no other country with similar proportionality of national parks to New Zealand. We have that heritage but we have had this gap that no one has seriously attempted to resolve since 1891. That is a unique situation. 
Let us talk for a moment about those gaps. I have already mentioned my modest holdings in the district of Te Tipua. I am in the process of selling some of that land and I want to retain a wetland. When I bought that property I was told there was a marginal strip down that river. I said I wanted a survey of that wetland and want to retain ownership of a bit of my birthright—of where I started. It is a good place to shoot ducks as well but that is not the only interest. I said to the surveyor just last week I have an egress a marginal strip down the river. He looked up and said: “No you haven’t.” I had believed there was a marginal strip down the river. I have just bought another property and they said: “Hang on; there’s no marginal strip there.” I went to the surveyor searched the deed got the Land Information New Zealand report—hey presto there is a marginal strip on the river there! That is relatively typical of what exists out there. 
The bill locks in the responsibilities of the Walking Access Commission but we should not underestimate the job as easy or simple. There will need to be an ongoing process. At least we have set up the Walking Access Commission and it will have a role in determining what exists and it will negotiate those opportunities. There are indeed a lot of unique things about this bill. I should mention Jim Sutton’s role in the legislation. I have said before that I think he probably got it a little bit wrong at the start of the process when he mentioned the wander-at-will provision. It made everybody a bit fearful and some people became quite concerned. I think that comment was out of context with the property rights of New Zealanders. I mentioned that we have a greater proportion of national parks and other opportunities to go walking than other countries. We are not the UK or Europe and there is not a history of wander-at-will walking opportunities such as are enshrined in the history of those countries but we have something unique and special in New Zealand and this bill is quite a significant step forward in improving the opportunities for New Zealanders to participate in that way. 
It is proper to acknowledge again that the role of the Walking Access Commission will not be an easy one. The people who are appointed will need integrity and that goes without saying. I pick up on the point made by my colleague Hone Harawira who said there should be fair representation of tangata whenua. There are responsibilities that go with the property rights determined by the commission so tangata whenua will have to be involved. The people appointed will need wisdom and an ability to negotiate. They will need to get some runs on the board. The commission will not be a talkfest; it will have to get some resolution of the issues that exist. Maybe at some time in the future the House will have to address the issue of private capture if some landowners continue that habit. We need to sound a warning to any future landowner who reads the legislation or the  
Hansard 
 of the debate that the House is saying this legislation does not resolve that issue but if there is an ongoing problem then the House will address it. That is a cautionary note to anybody who is thinking of squeezing a dollar out of exclusive capture. There are reasons why access may not be freely available but if we are talking about exclusive capture to generate a dollar then I believe that this House at some stage in the future will address that issue and it will be quicker than the 117 years it has taken for this significant step forward. 
It has been a pleasure to go back on to the Local Government and Environment Committee which I have been on and off a few times in my life but to be appointed to deal with this bill— 
Metiria Turei 
: We missed you. 
ERIC ROY 
: I missed those guys too. It was good to get a resolution and without the tabling of even one amendment. That is unique. I am happy to support the third reading of the bill. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It gives me huge pleasure and it is something of a privilege to be able to speak to the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. I think history will record this bill as one of the more significant achievements of this Parliament and certainly of this Government. I acknowledge the previous speaker and his contribution over a number of years on this bill. 
We had an interesting Committee stage last night and I will see whether the Hansard Office can circulate Mr Roy’s speech and give it to my good dear friend and colleague Sandra Goudie a Waikato MP whom I am very close to and also to John Carter from the far North whom in reality I am much closer to. We had an interesting interchange about some rules and regulations but that has been a very good summary. I think that Eric Roy and others have acknowledged the history of the bill and this is a very historical process. 
I acknowledge Doug Woolerton and thank him. Doug and I love the Waikato and we have seen the dangers whereby some of our recreational access ways along rivers and lakes are potentially being blocked off. We believe that a proactive Walking Access Commission working with local government and our conservation boards will start to play a part. 
One of the challenges for the new commission will be the kind of budget it has and the kind of leadership role it can take because we have to start looking very seriously in terms of negotiations with private-property owners particularly in terms of covenants across private land. Hopefully the Walking Access Commission will engage in some long-term strategic thinking about a network of walkways and access ways across our nation. That may take some time to achieve. 
I have already alluded to my dream that one day we will have a Pacific to Tasman walkway that will go from the Bay of Plenty over the Kaimais through the pristine farmlands of the Waikato and out to the wonderful Kawhia/Raglan area on the Tasman Sea. Again this is about a legacy for our grandchildren. I have just received a note and I say to the Hon Michael Cullen: “Who knows? But life will tell.” 
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the fact that many hands have been involved in the process of this bill. I particularly acknowledge Damien O’Connor. There has already been mention of Jim Sutton and I acknowledge his great role but I also acknowledge the many people within the Minister’s office. 
In particular I take the opportunity if I may to acknowledge Peter Coburn. I do not want to embarrass him but he is a very good West Coaster and I know the Minister would want me to acknowledge him. He works in the Minister’s office and he has always been exceptionally enthusiastic and passionate. If he is listening tonight—and I believe he is in the gallery—I say to him that working for this place is something of a challenge but this bill is one exercise on which I think he will look back in later life and say: “Job well done. This is a bit of a legacy I was part of.” I want to acknowledge particularly his role. The Minister asked me to do that and I am delighted to join with him in doing that. 
I also briefly mention my own patch and some wonderful people such as councillor Ted Armstrong whom my good colleague Sue Moroney knows well. Do members remember the days he got the old tin snippers out and used them along the Awatere Avenue walkway because private property owners at the time had fenced off our river access way? Doug Woolerton will remember that; he will remember old Ted getting the old snippers out and making the point. Those were not private fiefdoms and they were not Miami-style beach reserves; they were public access ways for the people of our city. 
I also mention Bill Featherston who is the director of our parks and gardens in Hamilton. He has come to me time and time again and said we have to make sure the Queen’s Chain becomes a reality because in some places it is actually quite a myth. Certainly we have to work with local government to ensure that those access ways are available. 
Finally let us get on and pass this bill. I know that the junior Government whip will be very keen to do that. I know that Leslie Soper will be keen. She has made me well aware of the wonderful heritage opportunities in her area of Southland and of what an incredible area it is. This bill will be a win-win for us throughout the country. In essence the bill raises the profile of walking access and provides a very strong foundation for the improvement and extension of walking access for our families—Kiwi families young and old. That is a wonderful legacy for this Parliament to gift and leave. 
The bill will also achieve a proper balance between the rights and aspirations of the public in terms of access to our beautiful countryside the property rights of landowners and the practical needs of farmers and other land users to be able to carry out their businesses without undue hindrance. I acknowledge the contribution of Waikato Federated Farmers Bill Garland and the people in the Waikato who have been very constructive in helping on this bill. 
Finally I acknowledge that the bill does not undermine private property rights. Public access to private land including Maori land remains subject to negotiation. That is the key and that is the point Eric Roy was making before. It is about negotiation and agreement with landholders. It is a huge pleasure and privilege to speak in support of legislation that I think our grandkids and great-grandkids will thank this Parliament for. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the Walking Access Bill as the best possible bill we could have in this area in the current political climate but we have some misgivings about some aspects of the bill particularly those regarding the balance of public and private rights inherent in it. The Greens’ position has been adequately conveyed in previous speeches so in the final speech on this bill we will focus on four specific matters that we have been investigating in recent weeks. 
I point out that the bill as it stands still does not give the commission the ability to arbitrate—it can only negotiate—so it still cannot actually deal with the really hard questions. Where there are really difficult issues this legislation will not help so I think that we should not over-egg it as to what it will achieve. I would also just encourage Eric Roy to connect with the poacher within himself. I tell him that he should go back to the poacher within himself. 
Eric Roy 
: I might kill someone! 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Ha ha! 
The first thing is the Overseas Investment Office. The Federated Mountain Clubs wrote to us raising the very good point that access opportunities are sometimes missed when the Overseas Investment Office negotiates conditions for the sale of sensitive land to overseas parties. Due to commercial sensitivity Ministers have refused to notify stakeholder groups like the Federated Mountain Clubs about such sales. Recreational stakeholders would obviously like the chance to identify and advocate for access opportunities and we agree. Obviously it would be preferable if we were not selling land to overseas owners but given that we know that it happens we think that this opportunity should be given. 
We raised this matter directly with the Minister. We are pleased to advise the House that the Minister has agreed that formalising the relationship between the Walking Access Commission and the Overseas Investment Office is possible without an amendment to either the Overseas Investment Act or the Walking Access Act and will be established via an exchange of ministerial letters. We thank the Federated Mountain Clubs and the Minister for undertaking constructive engagement to resolve this issue. 
Second the Green Party remains concerned with a definition in this bill—that of “private land”. Part of the definition is “any land that is held by a person under a lease or licence granted to the person by the Crown;”. This definition is only for the purpose of this bill but even so the inclusion of types of Crown land public land and conservation land in the definition of “private land” should ring alarm bells on principle. This part applies to two specific areas which are pastoral leases and leases and licences more broadly. Crown pastoral lease land is very attractive in its own right for recreation. However it has often been a barrier for access between public roads and the conservation estate. Some runholders have been able to effectively capture public areas and unreasonably deny access by assuming the authority of the Trespass Act. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee heard that the Fish and Game Council was contemplating making an application to the High Court for a declaratory judgment on whether Crown pastoral leases grant an exclusive possession of the land to the lessee. This application has now been lodged and it will be heard soon. If the High Court finds in the Fish and Game Council’s favour the present definition of “private land” may need to be reconsidered. It is important that Parliament is made aware of this possibility now so that there are no surprises later. 
Additionally the definition of “private land” in this bill applies to land held under any lease or licence so it includes things like a grazing lease or mining licence on conservation land. Generally areas like these are closed to public access only where there is a specific reason to do so—for example during mining operations or lambing. The Greens have been assured by the Minister that this definition will not lessen any current access rights to Crown land. The official advice is that it is significant only where there is a licence or lease that grants exclusive possession. 
The Green Party wishes to make it quite clear that we are voting for the bill on the understanding that the bill does not lessen current access rights and that it does not establish a principle that Crown leases and licences are in any way private land. The whole idea that public land is defined as private land is rather illogical members must admit. If any lessening of access rights transpires or if this legislation is used to confiscate access rights to public land the Green Party will fight to ensure that the current access rights on public land are restored. 
Third it is important that a Crown entity such as the Walking Access Commission which has responsibility for an area of intense public interest is transparent in its operations. Crown entities are required to establish their own operational procedures within the bounds of the Crown Entities Act. The Green Party votes for this bill in the hope that the commission will be transparent. The panels and consultation process that have led to this bill have been transparent and the commission is expected to continue the trend. We hope that means it will in general allow the public to attend its meetings and that it will publish its minutes notices and reports preferably on a website for ease of access. It is incumbent on an access commission to allow maximum public access to its decision making. 
Finally we have raised the issue of the rather long review period of 10 years in previous speeches and in the select committee. Despite the support of United Future on reducing this to a more sensible period we have not convinced the Government or the National Party to agree to a reduction. The Minister is confident that there will be ample chance for Ministers to identify and resolve problems with the legislation through the annual reports of the Walking Access Commission and through public interest and scrutiny of the commission’s activities. If problems or inefficiencies arise we sincerely hope that it is not necessary to wait for 10 long years to address them. With these points noted I say that the Greens will be voting for the bill. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. At the beginning of this legislative process United Future was concerned that the proposal would serve only to displace unformed legal roads as legal entities. Much has been done to address this concern and all those who worked on this bill need to congratulated on tidying that up. 
It is an especially and crucially important feature of New Zealand that wildlife freshwater fisheries and natural water do not attach to land title under New Zealand law but rather they are part of the public estate owned by everyone in general. As a consequence of that it is not unreasonable that the general public should be able to expect and to have fair and reasonable access to that which is theirs and although respecting the property rights of landowners they want to have access for recreation and for things as basic as food-gathering—as in the case of fishers and hunters. There are other forms of food-gathering such as shellfish and Maori customary food-gathering issues. 
A further consequence of this therefore is that there are now two sets of property rights in New Zealand: private property rights in land and public property rights in public resources. This is what makes New Zealand special and it has its origins in the wish of the early settlers to not see a replication of the landed gentry’s owning and exclusively controlling the fish and game animal resource. Therefore it is good and important that clause 3 of the bill specifically refers to these public resources and the  
Hansard  
record needs to show that Parliament intended for public resources to include wildlife freshwater fisheries and natural water. 
United Future joins with the Green Party in voicing our ongoing concerns over a couple of aspects of this bill. The New Zealand Walking Access Commission established by the bill remains basically toothless. Although it can negotiate with landowners to acquire an easement or lease over the land for use as a walkway it has no formal power to actually resolve any disputes of access. This is particularly important when negotiating over private land in order to gain access to a public resource such as a river or lake. We envisage that for 90 percent of cases this will not be a problem. The commission will effectively be able to negotiate access across private land with the least bit of hassle to landowners. However in the few cases where access is difficult to negotiate the commission has no formal powers to resolve the dispute and provide public access to a public resource by way of a walkway or enforcing access by way of unformed legal road. 
It is difficult to understand this aspect of the bill. There is in the bill the intention to resolve the issue surrounding the public’s right to access. However the commission that the bill sets up has no formal powers to actually do that. It is of concern that this whole bill is built around new access being implemented by negotiation and agreement rather than access actually being resolved. 
Public access to the South Island high country and Crown pastoral lease lands is of high public interest for outdoor recreation. United Future is disappointed to see that this bill still includes Crown leases and licences in the definition of private land when clearly they are not. These lands are owned by all New Zealanders and are a part of the broader public estate over which the lessees hold only a right to graze pasture. It is therefore important that this Parliament notes that the Fish and Game Council currently has before the High Court an application for a declaratory judgment on the question of whether Crown pastoral leases grant exclusive occupation of leased land. United Future understands that recent legal and public policy research on the special statutory nature of these leases suggests Crown pastoral leases do not carry exclusive occupancy which means that if the court agrees with Fish and Game then this definition in the bill will require amendment to remove all reference to Crown pastoral leases. 
Finally we want to recognise the efforts of Fish and Game in causing this bill to happen. It began back in 1999 when Fish and Game convinced the then Labour Opposition which then made a manifesto commitment that there was a growing issue around access and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of a privatisation of— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that the matter that is being spoken about at the moment is sub judice and is still before the courts. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could somebody clarify for me because I do not know of everything that is before the courts. Is it before the courts? 
Metiria Turei 
: There is a High Court application before the courts on behalf of Fish and Game I understand but I would also make the point that there is a breach of the sub judice rule only if it is likely that discussion of that proceeding is likely to cause prejudice to the outcome of the case. That is the test in the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The advice I have just heard and I take it as sound is that the House sets a high standard. Anything that is before the courts is not discussed by the House just as one does not expect the courts to comment on the work before us. 
JUDY TURNER 
: Can I just clarify that. My only reference was that the outcome of that case—and I was not making any comment on what the outcome would or could or should be—may require future investigation of definitions within this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: If the member could continue without making any further reference to it it would be helpful. 
JUDY TURNER 
: All right. I was just saying that I recognised that Fish and Game has had a huge input into where we are today in that it convinced the Labour Opposition back in 1999 which then made a manifesto commitment. The concern was that there was a growing issue around access and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of privatisation of public resources through the misuse of the Trespass Act to exclusively capture public resources that were on public land; for example rivers running through private land and game found on private land. 
Like the Greens we have some concern about the current review provisions of this bill. We think that 10 years is far too long and the concern we have is that if problems develop they could well have become entrenched and very counterproductive by the time this law is reviewed. However United Future is happy to support the third reading of this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to get some clarification around that rule because it does concern me a little bit that the bar might be set too high. Standing Order 111 states as you have pointed out: “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to determine its own matters matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to … (b) in any debate … if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” I am asking for clarification: is it then your ruling that the Speaker has automatically made a decision that in every case any matter that is being adjudicated by the court poses a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial without hearing the specifics of that case? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The most recent supplementary sub judice ruling was made by the Speaker on 27 August and I will read it or parts of it to the member: “The sub judice rule is set out in the Standing Orders and it is the Speaker who determines its application”—the member accepts that. “It is not for individual members to waive the application of the rule. The rule is not intended to inhibit discussion of the law in general. … However nothing said in the House should prejudice however slightly the decision of any court.” I think that is where we are erring on the safety side. I make the point that particularly when I was a Minister I knew that a first reading speech I made or what I said about potential rules affected what judges thought. So we have to be very careful about what we say in the House. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In speaking to the Walking Access Bill I take comfort in the comments of support from my colleagues. 
John Acland is present in the gallery and I acknowledge his work sincerity and commitment to this process. As the member for Kaikoura I feel that it would be appropriate to tell the House a little bit about the background of this bill and the angst that developed in Marlborough. It all originated from a candidate who was standing for selection for the Labour Party. His name was Brendon Burns. He took it upon himself to challenge the farmers and the local community saying that this approach was the right way forward and that there should be a right to roam. Unfortunately starting from that position did not build good trusting relationships. 
What happened in the end—and it was one of my first experiences as a candidate—was that at a forum in Blenheim David Carter and I spoke to a crowd of 200 very angry farmers. We got the message very early on that the community of Marlborough especially the rural community would not wear that approach. Sadly as things unfolded and John Acland came around with the Walking Access Consultation Panel he ran into the tail end of that suspicion. On that basis I apologise to John for that lack of trust and confidence in his sincerity in wanting to find a way forward. It was born out of deep-seated suspicion and a lot of aggro that had happened over some period of time. So it is heartening to see that we have found a way through. 
I acknowledge also the input of Eric Roy. Members appreciate the mana of the man when he speaks here. He has a very balanced and reasonable view of things and one would say that he can see both sides of the story. 
I point out to the House that New Zealand is one of the most urbanised countries in the OECD. In New Zealand 88 percent of people live in urban areas and 12 percent of people live in rural areas. I mention that from the point of view that I am one of those rural people. People get up and talk about romantic notions of wandering around in the hinterland enjoying their birthright and suchlike. When I have been snow-raking outside in cold weather I have wondered why on earth I decided to do it. When I have had to pull a beast out of river or a creek I have thought who in his or her right mind would want to do this. When I start to hear some of these romantic notions I say that we have to temper them with common sense—which I believe is what we have come to. 
The National Party’s 2005 policy on walking access is to ensure that public access is achieved through negotiated agreement with landowners. I am very comfortable with that although I pick up on John Carter’s comments during the Committee stage. I say to the members on the other side of the House that that policy will work under National but I have grave fears about how it would work under Labour. We are talking about a budget of $2 million. 
Something that has not been discussed during this process is the abdication of responsibility by the Department of Conservation. The Walking Access Commission will have to go into bat on behalf of those people who have been walking the many iconic tracks that have fallen into total disrepair. I refer to one particular iconic walk called the Three Passes. When I was a young fellow of about 19 we used to be able to walk over the Three Passes out through the Arahura River across the Styx Saddle and then down and out the Styx River but now that track has slipped away and it is becoming incredibly dangerous. People walk this track carrying 20 kilogram packs. The Walking Access Commission will have to have a serious talk to the Department of Conservation about maintaining those tracks. Or will it? 
I draw members’ attention to Part 3 which talks about administering authorities. Administering authorities either will give the Walking Access Commission permission to create a walkway on public land or they will not. We have been talking so much about private property rights which are very very important. We have been talking about access across privately owned land to get to public land but there is every opportunity that when this bill is passed today—obviously the House is supporting it—the Department of Conservation will abdicate its responsibilities to maintain its tracks. If the department says that it is not interested and it will not give away its right to control conservation estate this commission can effectively do nothing to bring it to heel. We have to be very mindful that this is an enormous issue and with a budget of $2 million I cannot see how the commission will be able to address this situation fully and adequately. 
It is all very fine that we have the commission and the controlling authority that will be appointed by the commission. That will probably be the local authority and I bet it will be tearing its hair out and not thanking us a great deal. There is a code of conduct. My wife said something very interesting the other day—she says a lot of interesting things—and I think it is worth repeating: “When people start talking about their rights they have generally done something wrong.” My real concern around this code of conduct is that we must instil into it that access is in fact a responsibility. Respect is to be shown and we must get that message through. Unfortunately in this whole process of things with the euphoria of access and suchlike we lose the real importance of respecting that right of access. 
Another thing that needs to be raised is that the Minister of Agriculture will have oversight of this and therefore the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will have oversight. It has to be very careful that it does not take its eye off its core responsibilities. We know that it is stretched beyond its limits at the moment. One has only to sit on the Primary Production Committee to see that its members are wrestling with such things as the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the hazardous substances legislation. The ministry also has challenges with biosecurity and it does not have its import health standards up to the standard they ought to be. We have seen just today around biosecurity that it has had to remove funding to deal with the varroa bee mite and it is wrestling with the clover root weevil issue. Such things as this are of huge concern. 
I put on notice that we are supporting this bill. This bill will work when it is in law under National but I have grave concerns about how it would work under Labour. Labour no longer has connections with the provinces. Labour does not have experience of farmers or the rural community and it has proven that it does not have respect for property rights. Thank you very much. 
Bill read a third time. 
Motions 
Regulation—Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications  Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 9(1) of the Regulations (Disallowance Act) 1989 the House revoke clause 4 of the Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand dated 18 August 2004 and published on 15 September 2004 on pages 2958-2960 of a supplement to the New Zealand Gazette which sets out the “Scope of Practice—Enrolled Nurse” and substitute the following: 
4. Scope of Practice—Enrolled Nurse 
Enrolled nurses practise under the direction of a registered nurse or midwife to implement nursing care for people who have stable and predictable health outcomes in situations that do not call for complex nursing judgment. The responsibilities of enrolled nurses include assisting clients with the activities of daily living recognising the changing needs of clients and performing delegated interventions from the nursing or midwifery care plan. 
Qualification 
Successful completion of a programme approved by the Nursing Council of New Zealand and a pass in the specified examination leading to registration as an enrolled nurse. The programme must be completed prior to 31 December 2004. 
This scope of practice is not open for any further new applicants from New Zealand who completed a programme after 31 December 2004 or new applicants from overseas who have applied after 18 September 2004. Applicants from that date will be registered as nurse assistants. 
Motion agreed to. 
Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill will establish a public lending right scheme to replace the New Zealand Authors’ Fund which is currently administered by Creative New Zealand under section 31 of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994. 
The Authors’ Fund exists only because of the action of some members of Parliament to insert the Authors’ Fund into that Act but I am delighted to say that this legislation repeals section 31 of that Act disestablishing the New Zealand Authors’ Fund and establishing a public lending right scheme for New Zealand authors in stand-alone legislation with greater transparency for the scheme’s purpose and operation. Like the New Zealand Authors’ Fund the public lending right scheme recognises that authors deserve payment in compensation for the ongoing use of their works in public libraries. 
The provisions in the bill have been developed in response to calls from authors and stakeholder groups over time. In particular in response to this a review of the Authors’ Fund in 2000 by Creative New Zealand made eight recommendations for reform. I am confident that this legislation will substantially implement the recommendations of stakeholder groups and of authors of course to deliver the arrangements they seek. 
The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee. I understand that owing to time pressure the committee was unable to report back on its deliberations on the bill. I would like to acknowledge the comments of those who made submissions. I found them very useful and insightful and as a result I intend to move some amendments to the bill in the Committee of the whole House. These amendments are mainly concerned with definitions of key terms to ensure that there is clarity about eligibility for payment. They also clarify the membership of the advisory group. 
The Government believes that this bill with the amendments specified in the Supplementary Order Paper will provide a firm foundation for the administration of the public lending right scheme. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As the Minister in the House Judith Tizard knows National will support the second reading of this bill. I look forward to the Committee stage because some interesting definitional matters will need to be dealt with and I will explain the rationale for those in a moment. 
This legislation has been a long time coming. I was chair of the Arts Board of Creative New Zealand and was responsible for organising the report that was written by Geoffrey McLay then a senior lecturer in the law faculty at Victoria University. He came up with a number of recommendations for reform of the Authors’ Fund. It had been a cause for concern and I must say a cause of dissension on the part of the Society of Authors whenever it met with the Arts Board or with the Arts Council of Creative New Zealand. Its members were always concerned about the way in which the Authors’ Fund was run and frankly I think they had some reason for that because I do not think that the administration of the fund by the Arts Council was always all that flash. That is why I was so pleased when this legislation was introduced and referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
The Minister is quite right that because of pressures of time and the need to deal with the resale royalties legislation we could not report this bill back to the House with a report as one would have hoped and therefore it comes back to the House without any proposed amendments. As the Minister has said she has a Supplementary Order Paper that will make a number of changes. 
What is the rationale for those changes? Both Mr Dail Jones and I in our first reading speeches expressed concern about the breadth of the regulation-making powers set out in clause 10 because as drafted the fund was replaced the public lending right was established in New Zealand the scheme was established the purpose was stated and that was about it. Everything else was to be left to regulations and essentially an advisory group was to be appointed that would do all the work and prepare some draft regulations. They would be passed by the chief executive of the department of State that the Prime Minister designated would have responsibility for the regulations and the administration of the fund—and that was it. Both Mr Jones and I as students of Professor Geoffrey Palmer as he once was thought that that was entirely unsatisfactory and that the statute ought at least to say something about an author or a book even if it did not descend into a lot of minutiae. So we invited Sir Geoffrey to come along to the select committee because we thought that his views on regulation would coincide with ours. Indeed they did; he thought there needed to be a little bit more in the statute than there was. 
As a result of that parliamentary counsel the officials and the members of the committee had a bit of a discussion and we decided that we would insert the definition of an author and the definition of a book. However it is very easy to say that it must be almost a primer 1 exercise to define a book because everyone knows what a book is but it can be imagined that in the digital age it is not quite as straightforward as that. Although we have a definition none the less—and this will be dealt with in the Supplementary Order Paper so I will not detain the House now—regulations may need to add conditions to the definition of “book” and also to the definition of “author” as it was not an entirely straightforward exercise to define those two terms. As I say when we come to the Committee stage I will have a good look at those terms because a number of issues arise. I was very grateful to the Minister a few days ago: I referred a couple of queries to her and her officials came back with a number of answers which I will respond to in detail during the Committee stage. So that is the reason why there will be a Supplementary Order Paper and why there is no report. 
This is a reasonably straightforward piece of legislation; none the less it is very important to the authors of New Zealand. They should be very grateful to the late Rt Hon Norman Kirk who established this fund in 1973. Following that as the Minister has told us when she was on the equivalent of the committee in 1993 at the time the Arts Council was being reformed she and a number of others managed to insert reference to the Authors’ Fund into the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act. Perhaps on reflection I think it may have been better if it had been placed somewhere else although I admire her desire to work for authors. Whether the administration of this kind of fund sits happily in an arts development agency is perhaps a difficult question. It probably does not in my view. None the less the intention was very good and I have to say that it probably meant that the Authors’ Fund was kept alive for the time that it was. But consistently with other jurisdictions it is now time to put the Authors’ Fund on a more permanent basis recognising a public lending right that has been recognised in many other jurisdictions. Once we tidy up this legislation we can get it passed as quickly as possible and the authors will have what they have been yearning for for many years. 
As I say National supports the second reading of the bill. The great thing about a public lending right is that if one believes in property rights one can support a public lending right. If one is a socialist and believes in welfare one can support a public lending right. So there is really no one in this House who should be opposed to a public lending right and it is one of those strange things that should result in unanimity. So there we have it—National supports the second reading and I look forward to the Committee stage tomorrow. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou.  
“Ka tangohia tetahi aikiha hiraka ka keri ai ki nga ringaringa kau he oneone kia ki tonu te kapunga o te ringa. Ka huna ano te aikiha me te oneone ki tana pukoro. Ahakoa ki hea ahakoa mahea ka haria tenei oneone kia maumahara. Tera ka mate au ki wahi ke he mea atu i toku kiko hei whakawhanaunga hei rahui i whenua ke.” 
Ko wera nga kupu a Keri Hulme nana te Booker Prize; a e 1.4 miriona ana pukapuka te b 
one people 
 i hokona huri noa i te ao. He kupu korero e pa ana ki te iwi Maori me te whenua e whakamarama ana i tetahi take hei whiriwhiri ma te Whare he take e ahu mai ana i tenei pire the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. 
Ko te kore o nga ture whakamaru i te matauranga tuku iho he take nui e whakararu ana i nga iwi taketake o te ao i nga tekau tau maha nei. Ahakoa matou e whakaae ana ka whakamaru tenei pire i nga tikanga o te hunga kaituhi korero ina utua ratou mo te tukutuku i a ratou pukapuka i roto i nga whare pukapuka ko ta matou whakapae me uru mai ano hoki ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare nei tetahi pire tiaki i te matauranga tuku iho. I a au e korero ana ka mahara ake ki a Katerina Mataira a Mereta Mita a Apirana Taylor a Keri Kaa a Hinemoana Baker a Patricia Grace a Rowley Habib a Witi Ihimaera a Hone Tuwhare a Hirini Moko Mead a Ranginui Walker a Apirina Ngata a Pei Te Hurinui Jones; a Te Rangi Hiroa Buck; a Ngahuia Te Awekotuku a Paul Diamond; a Roma Potiki; a Donna Awatere; a Charles Royal; a Saana Murray; a Alan Duff a Mihipeka Edwards a Maria Bargh a Linda Smith ko era etahi kei te mohio au kaore he mutunga ki te hunga nei. 
Mena ka haere koe ki te pae tukutuku a Huia Publishing ka kite koe e kotahi rau e iwa tekau ma rua nga kaituhi Maori kei reira anake. Ko ratou ma nga kaituhi kaipupuri i nga taonga tuku iho a nga matua tupuna i nga tau tekau e hia ke nei. E ai ki a Ahorangi Hirini Moko Mead “Ehara i te mea he reo Maori he reo Pakeha ranei a matou tuhinga korero engari he pai ranei he whakahihiko i te ngakau o te hunga korero whakarongo ranei.” Ma te tuhituhi i to ratou matauranga tuku iho e whakahihiko ana i o matou kaituhi Maori i te ngakau o nga whakatupuranga. E tika ana me whakapumautia o ratou tikanga tiaki i te matauranga tuku iho ara aua tikanga e ai ki a Wai 262 i whakaritea i whakaaetia ki a ratou i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
He take taku mo te whakamaru i nga tikanga o te iwi Maori kua tuhia nei wa ratou korero engari kua kite au kahore nga ture mo te mana pupuri me te mana pukenga e hangai ana ki nga tikanga Maori ki te ao Maori ranei. He tikanga i ruia mai i Rangiatea he tikanga a-iwi ehara i te tikanga a-tangata. Ko tera take ano ma matou o te Pati Maori kia taea e nga ropu kaituhi Maori ropu Maori pupuri matauranga ropu ta pukapuka Maori te whakaputa whakaaro ki te komiti wherawhera ara nga ropou penei: Te Ropu Whakahau te huinga topu o nga kaitiaki Maori i nga pukapuka i nga puna matauranga i whakaturia i te tau 1992 ki te manaaki ki te tautoko i nga tangata Maori kei roto i nga whare pukapuka o te motu e mahi ana; Te Wananga o Raukawa nana nga tohu matauranga mo te tiaki puna matauranga; Te Ha raua ko Nga Pou Kaituhi Maori nga komiti a-Toi Maori Aotearoa mo te tuhi korero; ratou ko nga kaita pukapuka Maori nga etita Maori me nga kaituhi Maori. 
Hei whakakapi i taku korero me mihi au ki te kaituhi Maori no Ngapuhi a Hemi Hori kua eke ki te taumata mo te Tohu Kaituhi o nga Whenua Here ki Ingarangi mo tana pukapuka  
Ocean Roads 
. Engari ko taku patai mena ka taea e ia te whiwhi i nga utu a-tau i te mea ka korero te pire nei mo nga kaituhi whai panga engari horekau he korero he aha taua panga kei a wai taua panga a ma wai e ki ka whai panga kahore ranei. 
E tautoko ana te Pati Maori i tenei pire me te tono ano ra kia whakarau te komiti i nga take penei i te tiaki i te matauranga tuku iho me nga tikanga e whai panga ai te kaituhi Maori. 
Tena koe Madam Speaker kia ora tatou e te Whare. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings Madam Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us all. 
“She takes a silk handkerchief from her pocket and with her bare hands scoops up soil enough to fill the hollow of her palm. She secretes handkerchief and earth back in her pocket. Wherever I go however I go I carry this earth for memory. And should I die in a strange land there is a little more than just my flesh to make a friend and sanctuary of alien ground”.  
Those are the words of Booker Prize winner Keri Hulme whose book  
The Bone People 
 sold over 1.4 million copies throughout the world. They touch on the importance of the relationship between Maori and the land and highlight one of the key issues this House needs to consider in respect of this Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill.  
The lack of legal protection for traditional knowledge has been identified as a significant problem by indigenous people all over the world for several decades. Although we support the fact that this bill may help protect the special interests of our people by making annual payments to New Zealand authors for the use of their books in libraries we would also point out that legislation providing legal protection for traditional knowledge should also be brought before this House. In making these comments I think of people like Katerina Mataira Merata Mita Apirana Taylor Keri Kaa Hinemoana Baker Patricia Grace Rowley Habib Witi Ihimaera Hone Tuwhare Hirini Moko Mead Ranginui Walker Apirina Ngata Pei Te Hurinui Jones Te Rangi Hiroa Buck Ngahuia Te Awekotuku Paul Diamond Roma Potiki Donna Awatere Charles Royal Saana Murray Alan Duff Mihipeka Edwards Maria Bargh and Linda 
Smith; and those are just some of the ones I know. The list is endless. 
In fact if we go to the Huia Publishing website we will find 192 current Maori authors on their books alone—people who along with many others have been writing and preserving our cultural heritage for decades. As Professor Hirini Moko Mead says “It’s not whether we write in Maori or in English but that we write well and inspire our readers and listeners.” Maori writers have been inspiring readers and listeners for generations by putting their traditional knowledge into print and their rights in respect of their matauranga Maori deserve to be protected rights that the Wai 262 claim says are guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi.  
One of the issues I wish to raise is the ongoing and urgent need to protect the interests of Maori in print and in doing so I note that copyright and other intellectual property laws do not lend themselves easily to the protection of the  
interests of peoples such as Maori whose world view spans centuries and does not necessarily insist upon individual ownership. The other issue for us the Maori Party is to ensure that Maori who have an interest in writing in library and information management and in publishing are able to bring their views to the select committee. I refer to organisations like Ropu Whakahau the collective of Maori librarians and information specialists formed in 1992 from a need to provide professional and cultural support to Maori who worked in libraries throughout Aotearoa;  
Te Wananga o Raukawa which delivers Maori information qualifications;  
Te Ha and Nga Pou Kaituhi Maori the literature committees of Toi Maori Aotearoa; and of course Maori publishers Maori editors and Maori writers themselves. 
In closing I would like to acknowledge Ngapuhi writer James George who has just been shortlisted for the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for his book  
Ocean Roads 
. But I would also ask whether he would be entitled to annual payments under this bill because it refers to eligible authors but leaves open the question of eligibility the criteria for eligibility and who actually gets to determine that eligibility.  
The Maori Party will support this bill but we would ask that issues such as legal protection for traditional knowledge and eligibility criteria be fully considered at select committee level. Greetings Madam Assistant Speaker and to us the House. 
] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted that we have the opportunity to support the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. As a huge fan of libraries and books I think it is a wonderful opportunity to support our authors. I just note that this payment will not be made to all authors; it will be made just to those who meet the eligibility criteria that are going to be set by the advisory committee. 
If we look at clause 13 “Establishment of advisory group” we see that the advisory group will set the regulations that have been identified in clause 10—and they are quite substantive—and that includes being able to determine the definition of “author”. One of the problems raised with us was the fact that one might pay an author of a book that meets the eligibility criteria but there is not just an author; there may also be an illustrator. How to define that and how to work out who gets what will be left up to the advisory group. So not all authors will receive some payment; only those who meet the eligibility criteria will receive it. I think that point needs to be made quite clear. 
It is interesting to note that 28 public lending right schemes exist internationally and that the underlying principle is to pay authors for the public benefit derived from the recurrent use of their works in a public library. I think that is a pretty sound principle but it does have to meet the criteria that the advisory group set. International practice has excluded non-book material held in libraries such as CD-Roms videos audio tapes music scores and other online services. The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill reflects that principle by paying creators for the public benefit derived from the current use of their works and that is an eminently sound proposition. 
The bill is a very short bill. There was considerable debate about the fact that in clause 10 substantial reference is made to regulations needing to be set—quite substantial in actual fact—but there did not seem to be a way of avoiding that because it will be people who have the experience in this field who will be on the advisory group that will be able to determine the parameters of each of those regulations that are being referred to. 
Suffice it to say National is supporting this bill. We look forward to seeing the conclusion and the positive results in support of our authors and their wonderful contribution to our many libraries throughout New Zealand. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation. I thank the National member Chris Finlayson for reminding the House of the comments we both made at the first reading stage. The bill has been referred back from the Government Administration Committee—[ 
Interruption 
]—I tell Mr Harawira and no doubt he will be making submissions at the Committee stage on what should be done. 
The bill is still not satisfactory of course because no amendments have been made to it at all. However some suggestions have been made which will be considered in the Committee stage. It is still not satisfactory because those amendments are relatively small. One would have hoped that more could be done but I guess if we want to try to get this bill through as soon as possible then we will be leaving it to the authors to decide the ultimate conclusion. 
Mind you I do not really believe that people who are authors and who have very liberal views on issues might necessarily be able to agree on what should be done and we do not want a situation where there can be no agreement. Sometimes a body like a parliamentary drafting office needs to be involved in the drafting of the legislation rather than leaving it to numerous third parties to try to reach a decision. Literary people and artistic people have a bad habit of not being able to express themselves as well as they might because they are too liberal minded. Sometimes the real rigour and discipline of a lawyer is needed in order to come to a conclusion and have decisions made. We will see what happens and I wish them all the greatest amount of luck. 
I also make the point that New Zealand First supports this bill because it supports the views of all religions all creeds and all races. We do not enter into this House with just a one-race viewpoint of how things should be done. We work on behalf of all the people of New Zealand and wish that when the regulations are finalised all the people of New Zealand will benefit. We do not come to this House with a one-eyed view on the matter. This is a short bill and the sooner we can get it through the House the better. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support this second reading of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. National welcomes this bill. We believe that this issue should have been looked at a very long time ago. We support authors who have wanted this legislation to secure their genuine property rights for a very long time. 
As has been mentioned the bill is short and simple although it will need some more work and some Supplementary Order Papers. It will establish a stand-alone statutory framework for the Authors’ Fund and it obliges the Government to pay authors for the use of their books in our libraries. That is the right thing to do. Authors should receive fair compensation for their intellectual property and National welcomes this commitment. 
It is difficult for creative people to make a living in New Zealand. National is always keen to see creative people get fair compensation for their creative endeavour preferably through a simple cost-effective structure and as of right. Legislation that pays creative people fairly for their intellectual property must be supported. It is always preferable for creative people to be paid directly for the value of their work rather than to have them always seeking grants and having to go regularly cap in hand to beg a living from the Government or other arts-funding organisations. Too often we see our artists writers and performers having to put time energy and effort into applying and lobbying for grants rather than actually delivering their creative work. In this case the argument is simple: the public lending right provides for authors to receive annual payments in recognition of the fact that their books are available for use in New Zealand libraries. If their books are of value to libraries and to the public who borrow them authors should be paid for the recurrent use of their work. 
New Zealanders are avid readers and we have one of the highest rates of book borrowing and use of reference works so we should be paying authors for the use of their intellectual property. A public lending scheme is a common arrangement around the world with 28 countries having similar schemes. Of course this was the argument behind the setting up of the original New Zealand Authors’ Fund which was established in 1973 and which was a good first start. But there have been ongoing problems concerning its effectiveness in recent years. The fund is now administered by Creative New Zealand and there has been vigorous debate over the level of funding the process for determining payments and the way the fund is administered. 
In reality the Authors’ Fund has been neglected by this Government. There has been a lack of certainty around funding because the fund does not have direct-line funding. That means that although authors’ books continue to be borrowed in libraries the income stream to authors is not guaranteed. Funding comes out of Creative New Zealand’s budget and so Creative New Zealand has discretion over the total amount of funding. And there have been no increases since 2002. In real terms the returns to authors have decreased dramatically over the last 5 years because the amount—$500000—allocated by Creative New Zealand has remained static and the numbers of books entering libraries has increased. The payment rate per book has dropped from $2.78 in 2002 to $2.09 in 2007 so authors have gone significantly backwards in real dollar terms and even more dramatically so in value terms. We all know how much the cost of living has increased for New Zealanders over the last 5 years but the return to authors has decreased. In good faith the authors have supplied their intellectual property to our libraries for the enjoyment and edification of New Zealand readers but the value of that intellectual property has been underestimated and underpaid by this Government. 
Authors have waited a long time to see these changes. A promise to review the Author’s Fund was made in 1999 in Labour’s manifesto. Now 9 years later—9 long years later—something is finally happening. As members have already heard my colleague Christopher Finlayson National’s spokesperson on arts and culture commissioned a review of the Authors’ Fund in 2000 when he was the Arts Board chair. This bill is a result of that review but it has taken 8 years to get here. The bill was promised in 1999 and had the work done on it in 2000 so what has stopped Labour from delivering on it? It is a little sad that the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill is finally being read for the second time under urgency on the last day of the last term of the Clark-Peters Government. Do Government members really think authors will reward them for this belated vote-catching ploy? 
National will support this bill going to the Committee stage. We support the right of creative people to be rewarded for the use of their intellectual property. We are embarrassed that this Government has allowed the gradual erosion of authors’ property rights over the years and we look forward to the time that they are paid a fair return for their work. New Zealanders are avid readers we are proud of our writers and illustrators we delight in borrowing and using their books in our libraries and we want to make sure that they get a fair go. We want to make sure they get fair payment for the public enjoyment and benefit that we all derive from their work. Thank you. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am really pleased to be able to speak in the second reading of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill and I must declare to the House straightaway that I anticipate being a financial beneficiary under this legislation just as I have been a beneficiary of the Authors’ Fund which is run by Creative New Zealand. Who knows what books I may have inside me in the future! There could be a really interesting one I guess about the last 3 years. 
I am very very grateful to Creative New Zealand for administering the Authors’ Fund; I have always found it to be very fair helpful and efficient to deal with. From the point of view of an author it is always nice particularly if one’s work is out of print to receive a cheque from Creative New Zealand—and in future years it will be nice to get it in a different form—because it is a little message that people are still interested in what one has written and are still reading it. Speaking as an author for whom this cheque is not my sole means of income it is not— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Just as well. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Well I can tell Dr Cullen that actually I have done quite well out of my writings. He will have some time on his hands next year no doubt and may like to have a try at writing something himself. 
The cheque comes and it is nice. But the sad thing is that on 31 March the rapacious Minister of Finance has his hand out for his share of it. If we are really serious about improving the position of authors in this country in addition to passing this bill maybe it is time to have a look at the taxation rates. Like everybody else authors will benefit from the very very significant tax cuts that are planned by the future National Government. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Is this a National promise? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It is interesting that the barrage that met me from the Government side of the House last night is going to continue. I welcome that because as I said to some of the gentlemen over there last night I had some success in life before I came into politics. I have not come into politics as an alternative to being successful. Part of that success has been being able to write stuff in the form of books and articles for journals and magazines that other people actually find worth reading and enjoyable to read. That is one of the points. 
When an author writes something that is his or her intellectual property and a lot of people do not actually appreciate that. There are people who think I keep stores of books in my car boot and elsewhere in my car and that they are there just to be given out at will. Those things have value to an author and this bill acknowledges that value. I for one welcome the announcement in Dr Cullen’s—no doubt—last Budget as Minister of Finance of an increase of $2 million in funding for authors over a number of years. Although that is minimal at least it is a start. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: His most recent Budget. He is at the mid-point of his career. 
Sue Moroney 
: We love his Budgets. He has more Budgets to come than you have books. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Goodness gracious me those members really are Madam Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: They are. They have woken up. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I could begin to feel a little intimidated here but I will not. It is only Mr Mallard. Everybody knows that Mr Mallard is the last person I would be intimidated by. Anyway to come back to the bill which really is important frankly I think the authors of New Zealand deserve to be treated with a bit more respect when we are debating this bill than the members opposite are displaying. 
I was talking about— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Most authors do not have a large public salary to subsidise their writing. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I shall ignore that Madam Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Keep going. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Those are the dying gasps of a dying Government. I just stress the importance of acknowledging the property right that authors hold. If we look through the history of this House and if we look at the members who have been successful authors we cannot help but reflect that that crowd over there pales into insignificance when compared with the greatest author to sit in this House—and he sat with Labour—John A Lee. Of course John A Lee was a pretty upfront honest sort of a guy. One of the great privileges in my life was to meet him in the late 1960s at Canterbury University. Those members do not want to know about authors like John A Lee because in his book  
Simple on a Soapbox 
 a magnificent book he exposed the reality of the inner workings of a socialist government. I certainly want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of members of this House who themselves have been authors and who were not fortunate enough to benefit from the funding that is available to today’s authors. 
There is another point that needs to be made too. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Please that’s enough. Give up. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: If the members opposite would just listen for a moment and stop being so negative and critical in their comments I would tell them that New Zealand is beginning to develop a significant literary tradition. It is only just coming. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Oh have you just discovered that? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Madam Assistant Speaker I comment to you that in your final days in this House presiding over a bunch of fourth-formers is probably not what you need. I will do my best to ignore them and stick with the bill . 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I would appreciate that. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I make the point that as New Zealand develops its literary tradition the establishment of the public lending right is a significant step in the recognition of authors. Whether they are writing fiction or non-fiction they contribute to New Zealand and what it means to live in New Zealand and to an emergent literary tradition. On behalf of all authors I acknowledge the importance of this work. [ 
Interruption 
] The fourth form does not give up Madam Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Just keep going. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It is very tempting to have a real crack at Mr Mallard Madam Assistant Speaker but he will keep. 
I will pull together what I have been saying. On this side of the House we are supporting the bill. We are a little disappointed when we look at the history of it that it has taken so long to get to this point. It is one more bill that is being rushed through under urgency when I think we could have shown the authors of New Zealand a little more respect than to do that but at least it is happening. I for one am delighted to support the bill. I am looking forward as I say to becoming a beneficiary of the legislation. I say to members that who knows the next book just may tell the truth about people like Trevor Mallard. 
Bill read a second time. 
Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee and I thank the chair of that committee for his work on this general area. 
Since the aquaculture reforms were enacted in December 2004 a number of issues with the legislation have arisen. These issues relating to the Environment Court’s decision in  
SMW Consortium Ltd v Tasman District Council 
 were addressed in the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill that has already been passed. This new bill the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) aims to facilitate the creation of new aquaculture marine areas known as AMAs and aquaculture space. 
The bill amends the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 to provide an opportunity for a person who has made an application under the Fisheries Act 1983 to negotiate an aquaculture agreement with the relevant commercial fishers where the permit would have previously been declined due to its undue adverse affect on commercial fishing. The amendment brings transitional processes more into line with the current law for new aquaculture marine areas. A preliminary assessment is that the impact of aquaculture in the Tasman area suggests that a large part of the area proposed for aquaculture may have needed to be declined without this bill. 
Experimental aquaculture is limited in scale of occupation to a maximum of 2 hectares and for a maximum of 5 years. Applications for experimental aquaculture must be assessed for any undue adverse effects on fishing under the Fisheries Act 1996 and be authorised by a resource consent granted under the Resource Management Act 1991. 
The bill makes a number of other minor technical amendments. These include addressing issues with the time frame for review of deemed consents amending the process for lodging aquaculture agreements providing clarification that an area deemed to be an aquaculture management area remain an aquaculture management area unless expressly removed by a later plan change and correcting definition problems in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. 
The bill aims to ensure that the planning framework for aquaculture is up to the task in providing environmentally and socially sustainable aquaculture and that it enables the industry’s potential to be realised. I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) being referred to the Primary Production Committee. We believe that it is worth supporting it and getting some progress in aquaculture. 
I remind members of the facts I told the House yesterday regarding the lack of progress in marine farming throughout New Zealand. The Government and many others are heralding this industry as a billion-dollar industry and the National Party hopes that that will be the case by 2025 but the reality is that the number of new aquaculture management areas—that is new areas where marine farming has not occurred before—created in the last 3½ years has been zero. There have been no new significant marine farm areas created under the new legislation in 3½ years anywhere in New Zealand and that is a disgrace. Have there been new marine farm areas? Yes but they were created under the old legislation. There has been none for 3½ years under the new legislation which is absolutely appalling. So we have a situation here where clearly the new legislation needs serious amendment. 
We had the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill which I will call the No. 1 bill a couple of days ago. It came back to the House after having been through the select committee and National supported that bill because it made some incremental improvements to the legislation of 3½ years ago. We now have this legislation which I will call the No. 2 bill which makes some more incremental improvements and we will support those. However I must emphasise that these are incremental improvements. They are nothing like the reforms of the reforms that we need in order to get aquaculture up and going and becoming the billion-dollar industry that surely everyone wants it to become by 2025. 
In moving on to the details of the bill I point out that essentially the legislation does four things. It facilitates the creation of new aquaculture management areas it addresses issues relating to invited private plan changes it enables experimental aquaculture and it provides for aquaculture agreements and transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation. I would like to touch on those last two points. 
I think that one of the important issues is that under the old legislation areas where marine farming was proposed to take place were subject to an assessment by the Ministry of Fisheries to see whether that would have any effects on commercial fishing. If a marine-farming space is set up one cannot generally fish in it. One cannot take a trawler or a longline through that area. It is very difficult to seek out any scallops or any other such fish underneath the marine farm. So the marine farm could very well have an impact on commercial fishing recreational fishing or customary fishing. Under the old marine-farming law a fisheries test was undertaken and if the effect on commercial recreational or customary fishing was significant the marine farm could not proceed and that was the end of it. Essentially if a marine farm is applied for the question is asked as to whether it would affect commercial or recreational fishing; if it would the marine farm does not proceed. 
Under the proposed changes before us if it was assessed that there would be an effect on in this case commercial fishing and marine farming could not proceed marine farmers can go to commercial fishers and say they know that their marine farm would have an impact on the commercial fishing business. Marine farmers could suggest doing a deal negotiate in some way or change the shape or the arrangement of the space they would occupy. They could change the seasonal occupation they have or pay some sort of financial compensation to the commercial fishing business. The question is what deal the marine farmers could do with commercial fishers. If agreement is reached following negotiations the marine farm can proceed; an aquaculture management area can be created and marine farming can continue inside it. The commercial fishers will be happy because clearly they will have received some sort of compensation or a change will have been made to the proposal that suits them. The aquaculturists will be happy because they have some marine-farming space to work on. Essentially the provision gives them an opportunity a way out rather than there being just a big red light and words saying “No marine farming here”. I think that is a good change and National will be happy to support it. 
The second change is an interesting one. At the moment if people want to set up marine farming it has to be inside what is called an aquaculture management area that is accepted by the regional council or unitary authority. The problem is that if someone wanted to experiment in aquaculture—say someone wanted to try farming a new species of fish or shellfish; or secondly to try a new way of marine farming using new technology; or thirdly to investigate a new space that is not currently marine farmed but may be a very successful area as it is nutrient rich which would be helpful for marine farming—at the moment he or she would have to go through the arduous process of going through the regional council or unitary authority and setting up an aquaculture management area. As I said at the commencement of my speech it has been 3½ years since any new aquaculture management area has been set up so even to experiment is very very difficult indeed. This legislation allows people to do experimental aquaculture with a new species in a new space or using new technology. 
This is a very interesting amendment because it entirely reflects my member’s bill which is currently in the ballot. I was disappointed that my member’s bill was not taken out of the ballot and debated before the close of this 3-year Parliament. 
Simon Power 
: Seek leave! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not need to seek leave because it appears in this No. 2 legislation. My member’s bill allowing experimental aquaculture to occur outside aquaculture management areas has essentially been photocopied slipped nicely between the staples of this legislation clipped up and sold back to the National Party as a good idea. Do members know what we say over here? We say it is a great idea. It is an excellent idea. The fingerprints of Phil Heatley and the National Party are all over this bill and we support it. 
What I did in my member’s bill and it is reflected in this legislation that we are supporting tonight was put some restrictions around experimental aquaculture. We cannot have marine farmers saying they want to do some experimental aquaculture outside the general rules but that they want to use heaps of space and make it really commercial. That is not experimental at all. So we said that the area that the experimental aquaculture would occupy could not exceed 2 hectares and the experimentation if one likes—the study—could not be undertaken for more than 5 years. So there was a 5-year limit in terms of time frames and a 2-hectare limit in terms of the space it could occupy. 
We also said the study needed to be alongside a research organisation which we thought was quite a good idea. In that way we could truly claim that in some way it was in fact experimental aquaculture. What the Minister for the Environment has done in the No. 2 bill in terms of the experimental aquaculture amendments is slightly different which is fine. 
We will be very interested for the new Parliament to look at this legislation—if it is decided that it will be carried over—and at the slight differences in approach between my member’s bill which has essentially been slipped in here and this legislation. Nevertheless we will support this legislation being referrred to the Primary Production Committee. The National Party will be voting for it this evening and we commend the Minister on even an incremental change. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I was looking for someone else to take a call on this important matter— 
Nathan Guy 
: You’d think the Government would be into it. They’re running out of puff. 
ERIC ROY 
: Yes well I actually thought it was the Government’s bill. There was a reasonably abbreviated response from the Minister when he introduced this and I was looking for something a little more full because being a little underdone on what is quite a complex bill I was hoping for some elaboration. But I am very happy to talk conceptually about what this bill will do given that the detail is quite complex. 
The issue quite simply comes down to this. New Zealand has a significant advantage compared with the rest of the world in putting in place fisheries legislation in terms of our wild fisheries but in terms of where we sit with the rest of the world and our role with agriculture it has been the sunrise industry for about a decade. We are all waiting. When I went to a seminar about 6 or 7 years ago we were told that it would be a $2 billion industry by the year 2015. I think it has grown about 3 percent in that period. The nuts and bolts are that we are significantly behind. The Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard is shaking his head. I ask the Minister what the figure is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I can’t give it off the top of my head but it is certainly more than that. 
ERIC ROY 
: No it is not very much more than that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There has been good growth. 
ERIC ROY 
: There has been minimal growth and the Minister knows that. Not only that but there have been some endemic problems that have not been addressed by this Government. We have had a situation that was largely what might be termed a gold rush if we can say that. It is a spatial rush. Limited areas have been designated people got in and registered and some of those areas have been developed and some of them have not. In a way we have not had the best possible ways of apportioning space to the industry and in a lot of ways we have not best matched that space to the best species. 
We had a significant number of difficulties around experimentation and this is addressed to some degree in the bill. We have also had some issues around things like spat catching and being able to transfer spat into areas where the mussel industry has been operating as aquaculture. We have before us a No. 2 amendment bill. It is a kind of omnibus bill: it picks up four different Acts. There will have to be consequential legislation to these four different Acts and I understand that at the end of the day this bill will be divided into four separate Acts. The select committee is keen to move forward and to progress this. The Minister nods his head; he knows— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am just having a laugh because I thought the member was supporting it. 
ERIC ROY 
: We are supporting it. In actual fact my message to the Minister is quite clear: he has sat on his hands for too long. We have known about the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) for some months yet it has just appeared on the last day of Parliament. 
Hon Member 
: They had 9 years. 
ERIC ROY 
: They had 9 long years. We heard the term “9 long years” frequently spoken today in Labour’s valedictory speeches. We have been in Opposition for 9 long years and on the last day in urgency the bill is suddenly put in. We do not know the shape of the next Primary Production Committee but the current one would have loved to get its teeth into this and sort out these issues— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Eric I’ll just give you a comment. I wanted to do this as part of the first bill but David Carter turned me down. 
ERIC ROY 
: No that was a separate issue. We needed to have this bill in well before that other bill. That was a specific issue and the Minister knows that. We are supporting this legislation. 
I am sure the select committee is looking forward to resolving some of these issues. I am not sure who the members will be but the new select committee with most probably a new chair and new membership will have this bill to cut its teeth on. I just put out this little warning. Fisheries legislation is in some ways more complex than tax legislation. It is hugely difficult so we do not want any shortcuts. 
I say to the Minister in the dying days of this Government that we should have had this bill before now. We support it. We look forward to hearing the submissions and to progressing this omnibus bill which will step forward— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Omnibus? 
ERIC ROY 
: It is an omnibus bill; it says so in the explanatory note. We look forward to progressing it. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker who will be Dr Pita Sharples can I just ask the House to settle down. Eric Roy kept on calling things out which meant that Trevor Mallard kept contributing. It is two-sided. Can we just have a little bit of quiet. 
Eric Roy 
: But it’s a debate! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: It is a debate in turns and speeches. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 We are pleased that after many months of waiting we have had not just one but a whole series of amendments in two separate bills relating to the marine-farming rights and interests held by iwi in aquaculture. The Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) is an omnibus bill amending the Resource Management Act 1991 the Fisheries Act 1996 the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. The bill is important in the way it seeks to make progress on resolving iwi aquaculture claims in a manner consistent with the 1992 fisheries settlement. 
The Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) amends legislation to facilitate the creation of the new aquaculture management areas that everyone has been talking about. If the House hears a sigh of relief it is from the aquaculture industry for whom finally the end is in sight. The goal of being a billion-dollar business by 2025 might actually come to fruition. 
The bill does a whole lot of things that we in the Maori Party are pleased to support. It responds to issues relating to invited private plan changes it will enable experimental aquaculture and it supports environmental monitoring and other technical amendments relating to the 2004 aquaculture reforms. We see these developments as very positive indications of a partnership with the aquaculture industry. 
Yesterday the Maori Party brought to the House the tremendous possibilities inherent in the project envisaged for the seafood and aquaculture sector in Te Tau Ihu. The project contemplated by Wakatu Incorporation is one of many projects that we know will drive innovation in aquaculture and create a reputable profile internationally and at home that places aquaculture firmly as a growth industry. 
We know that aquaculture has incredible potential for business growth and prosperity and we believe that the amendments in this bill may help stimulate the industry to achieve these outcomes. But there is much more at stake than simply clarifying the policy intent of the aquaculture reforms. The bill will correct problems with the current law and improve operation for businesses iwi and local government. In doing so we can be optimistic that the role of tangata whenua in aquaculture reforms may finally be treated with respect by the Crown. 
The Waitangi Tribunal of course had concluded that the original proposed aquaculture reforms would breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Its finding was that Maori have an interest in marine farming that should be encompassed within the rights of the coastal marine area. It concluded also that marine farming represents a taonga protected by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Given such an important Treaty context it is of course disappointing that the bill lacks a Treaty clause but we are ever hopeful that that will occur during the select committee consideration of this bill. 
The Maori Party has been following the developments in aquaculture closely. Many different aspects to the framework for aquaculture activities should be considered. The one that is frequently mentioned is of course the oft-quoted statistic that New Zealand’s farmed fish and shellfish production is now worth $390 million a year. Tangata whenua have every right to benefit from that success just as much as any other New Zealander but there are other additional responsibilities and obligations that we as Maori consider to be an essential part of the discussion around aquaculture. There are significant cultural aspects for Maori in aquaculture development in the context of kaitiakitanga—that is our guardianship role in relation to the management over marine resources. 
We welcome the straightforward way in which this bill describes how aquaculture areas can be created. The bill specifies that aquaculture management areas can be created by developing a regional coastal plan that provides for aquaculture management areas under the Resource Management Act 1991 by the interim aquaculture management area process set out in the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 and by deeming marine farms approved under old legislation as aquaculture management areas under section 45 of the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. Well perhaps I will need to revise my original description of the process as being straightforward! But it is positive that these details around operative regional coastal plans coastal permits and other technical interpretations are at least set out in the legislation for all to see. 
Finally we make reference to the inclusion in the bill of environmental monitoring—using marine organisms to monitor the state of the marine environment. This section in the bill will be of particular relevance to the iwi of Tasman Bay namely Te Atiawa Ngati Rarua Ngati Koata Ngati Tama Ngati Rarua - Atiawa Iwi Trust and Wakatu Incorporation. The House will recall that these iwi were affected by the invasive South African brown mussel which was discovered following the de-fouling of the oil rig in Tasman Bay last December. We in the Maori Party raised that event in the House earlier this year and helped to raise the profile of the need to ensure a more rigorous scrutiny of biosecurity standards for the aquaculture industry. Although efforts to keep Aotearoa free of invasive horticultural and agricultural pests have been extremely tight it appears that quite a different benchmark has been allowed for the aquaculture industry. 
I want to commend the iwi of Te Tau Ihu particularly Ngati Koata which has applied pressure on the Government to initiate biosecurity standards that would apply to aquaculture. It is obviously good that the bill provides for environmental monitoring to take place not just in aquaculture management areas but also in the wider marine environment. 
We believe that this bill will assist in the advancement of the rangatiratanga as demonstrated by organisations such as Wakatu Incorporation and its Horoirangi initiative. We believe the amendments will enable research and innovation to take place in the industry. They will allow experimental aquaculture to take place outside aquaculture management areas and in doing so they will support the livelihood of many of our iwi and whanau involved in aquaculture. We support this bill. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Yet again another aquaculture bill has come before the House and one gets the impression that it is getting all too difficult for the present Government. However I take comfort from the direction of the National spokesperson on aquaculture Phil Heatley that National supports the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2). 
It is concerning that it all looks so very easy to sort out but as articulated by Eric Roy this type of legislation is more complex than the taxation legislation—and the taxation legislation certainly is complex. It is very hard to think that we will sort out existing-use rights and competing-use rights with legislation as basic as this as the explanatory note denotes. I think we are dreaming. 
However it is important that we support this industry and the wider industry in the context that aquaculture is operating in a public space. It is operating in an area where people have businesses and they have ownership of quota. It is very complex. There is also that expectation that overlays everything: the right or the privilege of the recreational fisher. It is in that context and within that environment that we are endeavouring to reach the goal of having an aquaculture industry worth $1 billion by 2025. This bill in a small way will facilitate progress. 
I was quite interested when the Mayor of Marlborough District came to me yesterday and asked: “Colin have you passed any bills for aquaculture lately?”. I scratched my head. I knew there were a couple of bills coming up but I said: “No nothing really specific.” But obviously people are very very interested to see how the way forward unfolds. Aquaculture got started in Marlborough back in 1971. If we look at the laws we will be making minor modifications to the Resource Management Act 1991 the Fisheries Act 1996 the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 we will get an idea of how complex the way forward has been. 
Certainly as the member from the Maori Party Pita Sharples has mentioned the aquaculture industry itself is worth somewhere in the region of $300 million to $400 million and the industry in the top of the South Island probably is worth the better part of $300 million - odd—it is a very very important industry. But for the councils concerned the way forward has been incredibly complex. I think that highlights the difficulty with the general basis of the legislation; we are trying to just put sticking plasters over a massive problem. Really what will sort this issue out—although this bill will go some way—is looking at the legislation completely. The bill effectively amends the legislation; it creates the opportunity for the establishment of new aquaculture management areas it addresses issues relating to the invited private plan change process it enables experimental aquaculture and it provides for aquaculture agreements and transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation. 
Again I make the point to the House that the bill is quite complex which is reflected in the very fundamental underlying feature of the general legislation. One cannot go past making the point that under Labour over the last 3½ years absolutely nothing has been achieved. It is a serious concern that iwi in the top of the South Island have high expectations of their Treaty settlement. I recall the foreshore and seabed issue emanated out of absolute frustration. The Ngati Apa people having received a finding from the Treaty settlement people were so far back in the queue that they had to do something to try to halt the way that aquaculture space was being allocated. I hope that as settlements with the various iwi go forward we will see aquaculture space allocated whether in the form of cash or as actual space. 
The bill talks about Tasman Bay and it talks about how the process might be improved to find space. There is the issue of undue effects on commercial fishers and if that is the case we have to find a way through. The bill effectively sets up the ability to negotiate a way through and to see whether there is an opportunity for marine farming or spat catching permits under the Fisheries Act 1983. 
The councils will watch this development with great interest because what we are talking about here is overlapping or conflicting resource use and we have to find a way through it. The explanatory note explains that issue quite well when it talks about overlapping and conflicting resource use: “The Bill enables councils to hold an expression of interest process to identify spatial overlaps. Where overlaps are identified competing interests will be given a period to negotiate with each other to resolve the competition …”. However if it does not get resolved it becomes quite important that under this legislation there is a default situation. 
When submissions come in to the Primary Production Committee it will be very interesting to see how robust that debate will be because the explanatory note states: “Where negotiation fails the default is that a financial tender will be used to choose between expressions of interest that relate to the same space.” I am sure that the comment will certainly raise the ire of one or two people who have a very strong view. I am sure a number of people will express a view on that in their submissions to the select committee. 
From the councils’ point of view the bill does provide an opportunity for coastal permits for experimental agriculture activities but those will be issued for a maximum of 5 years with no right of renewal. That scenario could potentially lead to a lack of certainty for the person who had put up that investment. Given that level of uncertainty I ask members whether we would be able to guarantee that people will put their hands in their pockets to invest. 
National will be supporting this bill being referred to the select committee. However the underlying basis of it all is that under Labour nothing has been achieved. We are here now at 10.22 p.m. under urgency and a bill of this nature has come forward. It is too little too late. It will take a National Government to sort this issue out and I look forward to that opportunity. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 My colleague Colin King comes from the top end of the South Island where aquaculture was introduced. By my recollection that was more than 30 years ago in about 1971 and the formation of mussel farms caused a huge row. Subsequently the industry has become very well-established both in Queen Charlotte Sound and in Pelorus Sound. Salmon have now also been introduced. They swim happily in a number of locations in the sounds and New Zealanders traversing Tory Channel on the ferries can see them. 
I rise to support the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2). I move from the oily calm waters of the Marlborough Sounds to the rather wild waters of my electorate that stretch from Turakirae Head in the southern North Island right through Palliser Bay past Ngawi and almost to Cape Kidnappers. One might feel that this area does not have the potential for aquaculture. But I promise Mr Mallard that I have had constituents approach me over the last 3 years of this Government to express their concern. They say that the Minister of Aquaculture Jim Anderton has delivered nothing for 3 whole years. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He is not the Minister of aquaculture. 
JOHN HAYES 
: He is the Minister of Fisheries. The people in my electorate have the technology to grow paua. There is now the technology in my electorate to fatten kina. People have developed a feed formula that doubles the weight of kina roe in 30 days or less. That is hugely significant because kina roe command a very very high price on the Japanese market. 
It is for these reasons that I rise in support of this legislation. The bill provides for the facilitation and the creation of new aquaculture management areas. I hope that that will allow my constituents to unlock the potential of the Wairarapa electorate—particularly its coastline—and to establish new industries that will provide employment processing and foreign exchange. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am sure Denise would have knocked on the Minister’s door by now. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Well she might have knocked on it last time but she did not succeed did she I say to Mr Mallard. Nevertheless the people in my electorate have faith in me to represent their views and that is why I am supporting this legislation. I want to make sure that in the first 100 days of the next Government we will amend the Resource Management Act. One of the reasons that there have been no new aquaculture proposals is the complications of the Resource Management Act which is totally stymying aquaculture experimentation and research activity and the establishment of an aquaculture industry in my electorate. 
I am also pleased that this bill will provide for transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation because the whole arrangement has been deadlocked for the past 3 years. My constituents have endeavoured to establish aquaculture projects under one piece of legislation and they will now be confronted with this new bill which is very complex. In fact the whole fishing legislation is totally complicated I say to Mr Mallard. Progress in creating new marine-farming space has been incredibly slow and Mr Mallard should stand up and take a bow for inactivity. I do not quite know why the Minister has collected his salary for the last 3½ years. His inactivity has held up the settlement to hand over to Maori 20 percent settlement of all new space. Maori communities—and there are plenty in my electorate—have been stymied by his inactivity as well. 
Both these pieces of legislation simply secure the current status of the existing legislation but we have to see them as interim measures only. As my colleague Phil Heatley has said the legislation is only a sticking plaster a temporary solution to consolidate some mechanism for moving forward. 
Colin King 
: We cannot make something crooked straight. 
JOHN HAYES 
: No we cannot and when the Government changes in about 7 weeks’ time we will certainly be busy addressing those problems and unlocking the economic potential of our coastal areas. I would like to finish by simply saying that this bill will have a big impact in my electorate once it has been modified by a new Government. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee. 
Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee and that the committee report back to the House by the end of March 2009. 
This bill vests the fee simple estate in Whakarewarewa Valley and Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve land in Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. The iwi partners will collectively become the landowners of this area subject to the usual protections. For clarity the area comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve. These lands surround the Whakarewarewa Village. The village has always been in Maori ownership and is not affected by this bill. The lands include the Pohutu Geyser and other iconic tourist attractions. The Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will be transferred from the Crown to the trustees of the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust under the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu legislation. As agreed by the iwi parties the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will transfer from the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust trustees to the Whakarewarewa joint trust the day after the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu legislation passes. 
It is very satisfying indeed to be able to promote a bill that recognises the cultural traditional historical and spiritual importance of an area to the iwi. The bill continues the positive progress made by this Government and by iwi across the Bay of Plenty region in strengthening the Crown-Maori relationship both through Treaty settlements and through contemporary initiatives like this one. The bill also provides for the more generalised interests of all New Zealanders. The Whakarewarewa joint trust has been established for the purpose of administering these lands which will retain their recreation reserve status under the Reserves Act 1977. The leases to the New Zealand Maori Arts and Crafts Institute will continue and the protections of conservation values contained within the Reserves Act will remain. 
Before I go on I acknowledge the leadership of Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao representatives. E mihi kau ana i a koutou e Anaru e Rangi koutou katoa nga whaea. On 1 April 2008 iwi representatives presented Ministers with their proposal to remove the lands from the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu legislation and vest them in a joint trust of the iwi partners. A number of representative entities are involved and I pause to acknowledge each of them: Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust Pukeroa-Oruawhata Trust Ngati Whakaue Lands Trust Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Whakaue the Tuhourangi Tribal Authority and the Rahui Trust. Those entities came together to progress the successful resolution of a range of issues raised during the transfer negotiations so that this bill could be finalised for introduction into the House. I congratulate them on their leadership and unity of purpose on this matter. 
A large number of hapu and iwi entities were involved in this initiative representing a diverse range of interests. This meant that the negotiations for the transfer of these lands were always going to require the determination goodwill and generosity of those iwi and hapu representatives. The common and shared interest of those groups in this area and the whanaungatanga expressed by their leadership meant that this initiative was achievable. I commend them for that. 
For the purpose of this bill Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao are defined as a single entity. A small number of iwi members asked that Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao be separated for the purposes of this bill. The Maori Affairs Committee considered that issue during the hearings on the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. The select committee report back to the House did not recommend that Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao be separated in this instance. I am satisfied that Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao have expressed a desire to be represented as a single entity through both their endorsement of the vesting agreement and their agreement to this bill. The bill also provides for an independent mana whenua determination process which I will talk about shortly. But overall this bill provides for Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao to determine their beneficial interests and does not constrain them. 
The bill of course represents more than a simple land transfer from the Crown to Maori subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. The wider motivations for the Crown and the iwi negotiators included an agreement to vest the fee simple estate in those reserve lands outside the Treaty settlement process. By so doing the mana of the land of the people of Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao will be recognised and a stronger Crown-Maori relationship can continue to be built. Taken together with the pending successful conclusion of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu legislation and the Central North Island Iwi Collective Treaty settlements this bill will position Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao to build a better future for their people and will provide a foundation for the better realisation of their potential as Maori in their rohe hau kainga. 
This bill will give effect to an agreement signed by the Crown Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and at a later date the trustees of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust. With 34 clauses the bill itself is not overly long. Its contents however reflect the complexity of transferring this kind of Crown land to Maori. It is situated at the intersection of neighbouring hapu and iwi. It has well-known iconic value to the country as a whole and to tourists who visit the area. The bill will transfer the land to a joint trust that is representative of Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. The agreement also recognises the wider significance of the land to the public generally. 
To ensure that hapu and iwi have a way of determining their interest in the land the bill enables the trustees to determine the beneficial entitlement to the fee simple estate in the land. The trust deed therefore includes a procedure for determining the beneficial entitlement to the reserves and the possible transfer of some or all of that land to the appropriate entities. As reflected in the vesting agreement the Crown has acknowledged that the hapu of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and Ngati Whakaue have the right to have their claims to the beneficial ownership of the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve independently determined. That may result in the subdivision of the reserves into smaller parcels in recognition of the particular interests of iwi and hapu if that is what they wish. 
The bill provides that the administering body of the reserves will be the trustees of the Whakarewarewa joint trust who represent Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. The trustees will become the lessees and will receive the rental proceeds from the leases to the New Zealand Maori Arts and Crafts Institute to administer them on behalf of the people. The bill is significant because the vesting will recognise the mana of the iwi parties to the Whakarewarewa Valley and Roto-a-Tamaheke lands. Iwi will lead the process through which their more specific interests in the lands will be reflected in the future. For those reasons the bill should proceed without delay to the Maori Affairs Committee and be reported back to the House by the end of March 2009. That will allow the select committee sufficient time to receive submissions on the bill after the Christmas break. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I start by saying that the briefing paper I received on the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill is pretty straightforward and there do not appear to be any fish-hooks. But when I look closely at the background to the bill there are some questions that my colleagues and I and those on the Maori Affairs Committee might like to ask when the new committee is established after the election. The briefing paper states that the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve were acquired by the Crown from Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That begs the question of what was paid for and how the land was acquired. Was it paid for was it stolen did the people at home say: “Please ‘Mr Crown’ can you look after it for us because we’re not in a position to look after it.”? Those are the sorts of questions that I would like answered. 
In reading through the briefing paper it seems that although there is the transfer of the fee simple title in these reserves they will remain as reserves for a long long time into the future. They will always be reserves even though the landlord may have changed hands. But in effect I think the bill is a bit of a Clayton’s deal. The fee simple title has been given back but one cannot really do anything with it. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Yes you can. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is good; the Minister says one can do something with it. That is fine if that is the effect. But it looks as though from the briefing paper that I have been given from the Minister of Maori Affairs’ office— 
Pita Paraone 
: What? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes a briefing paper from the Minister of Maori Affairs’ office—I do not know how I got it but I got it. It must be one of those things that slipped off the back of the trolley. 
Simon Power 
: Got it from Trevor’s office. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes I got it from Trevor Mallard’s office. But all kidding aside the briefing paper says that the land will continue to be reserves under the Reserves Act. If that is true then I would be of the opinion that people cannot do anything with it other than what is allowed for under the Reserves Act. We may have to tidy that up and find out for real what people can do with the land that has been handed back. 
I will not take up too much more time other than to reply to the point in the Minister’s speech about Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao—here we go again. But the funny thing is that on page 1 of the briefing paper it states “Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi-Ngati Wahiao” which is different from what is on page 4 which states “Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao”. I know that this is a real minor point and that I must thank our kaumatua for pointing this out. They did not bail me up outside but they saw me waiting for my other half and they instructed me on the whakapapa of Wahiao and Tuhourangi. So I thank them very much and it is all clear—ko atea. But I still have a problem with why there is a hyphen between the names of the two iwi on page 1 and then there is no hyphen on page 4 but just a straight “Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao”. 
The great thing about this is that we have gone through the debates in the other two bills and maybe it will be one of the chores of the next Maori Affairs Committee to delve deeper into— 
Pita Paraone 
: It’ll be the same one. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is highly unlikely brother—highly unlikely. 
Pita Paraone 
: It might have a new chairman. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well we might have a new chairman. 
Pita Paraone 
: But Dave will be there. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: For that to happen I digress—[ 
Interruption 
] I will not go there. That is one of those issues that maybe the next Maori Affairs Committee can delve into. 
I would question the paragraph on page 3 of the briefing paper asking whether the bill is part of a Treaty settlement. It states in the briefing paper that no it is not. I wonder why it is not part of an overall Treaty package. What is the reason for it? Is it just because the Crown is feeling rather benevolent and has said: “OK you guys. You can have this.” or what was the reason? It does not say in the briefing paper. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: It’s the right thing to do. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh it is the right thing to do. So why was it not done in the first 9 years of this Labour Government? Oh I get it. Now it is all—like I said before—ko atea. I am clear now as to why the Government is doing it so late in the piece. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Because you didn’t. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh the question is why we did not do it. Well I might even ask why we did not fight in the Crimean War for goodness’ sake! Those members are in the Government. One would have thought that there was a better answer than: “Well why didn’t you do it?”. In fact I will give a reply to that question. Why did we not do it? Actually I did not even think about it. At least the answer to that question from me is an honest answer an upfront answer but this bill is all about trying to curry favour. That is all it is. Because if it is not part of a Treaty settlement then what is it for? Maybe I was a bit harsh. Maybe I am being a bit harsh. But maybe it is not part of a Treaty settlement because if it was then the value of the reserves in question would have gone against the value of the whole Treaty package and they would have gone over it and it would have had an impact on the ratchet clauses both in the Ngai Tahu legislation and the Tainui legislation. Maybe that is why it is not part of the Treaty legislation. Oh yeah that is right. Anyway in a nutshell that is the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. 
Going back a bit I congratulate Te Arawa in general. It is not their fault that this bill has been so late in coming. It is not their fault that there is an election in 6½ weeks’ time. Again I offer my congratulations on their seizing the opportunity but I will have to ask some questions. We will not be voting against this bill; we will be voting for it to go to the select committee so that the select committee can ask and maybe receive some answers from the officials and the Minister in charge—whoever that may be—in the coming months. 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s not going to be you. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh it is not going to be me. So now we have the matakite from Ngapuhi. He even knows who will be the Minister. Well well I am astounded by my tuakana’s ability to get out that crystal ball and see who the Minister will be. If it is not me well who cares? This ain’t about me; this is about a bill that needs questioning. That is what we will do and that is what this House will do come the select committee debate. Kia ora. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill at its first reading knowing that the select committee will not be considering it for some time. On the face of it this looks like very simple and basic legislation but it is actually more complex than that as most settlements are. 
I have some concerns that the Minister has not set out. Some of those concerns were expressed by members of particularly Ngati Wahiao about the process by which this bill came about. I have been sent some information and have been reading documents about concerns around the process by which this legislation this deal was endorsed. I understand that there are some real concerns about the eligibility difference between the iwi who are involved in the transfer of this land concerns about the endorsement hui and also concerns about the postal vote discrepancies. There was concern that some of the owners of the blocks have been excluded from the endorsement process because they are not involved members of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. I understand there is a request for the option of a separate registered role for Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao so that there can be another go at developing a proper process. 
I do not know the full background behind those concerns but I do know that the Crown very easily accepts poor process when dealing with settlements. I believe and the Green Party believes that the Crown must not just be satisfied that there was a process but that it should also be satisfied that the process itself was transparent fair and just for all of those who are affected by the decisions. I think that it is quite legitimate for the members of the iwi and hapu involved to raise concerns about that and generally speaking the select committee considers those concerns and takes them seriously. It is extremely important that the mana whenua of the land in question in any settlement—this one included—have the fullest confidence that for them the process was a just fair and legitimate one. Of course we know from many of the settlements that we have dealt with in this House and from many that we have looked at as select committee members through the last few years that often the processes involved are very poor. 
It is interesting to note that because the select committee will not be considering this bill for possibly a month or two or three depending on the outcome of the election the Government has time to address the concerns that have been set out. It does have time to go back to those who have raised legitimate concerns to work through the process with them to come back to the select committee when it has its meetings on this bill and to advise us on the outcome of those discussions and how it seeks to remedy the concerns about the process. There is nothing illegitimate about doing that. It makes perfect sense to do that. The Crown has the resources to go and talk with people and in fact that is the whole point of the Treaty settlement process. It is intended to enable the development of much better relationships between the Crown and iwi. That is often forgotten in the furore about land and money but actually in part the process is about strengthening relationships and if the processes by which settlement bills come about are unfair unjust or exclude those who should not be excluded then the relationship between the Crown and iwi is in peril and the whole point of the settlement legislation is put in peril. It cannot be a full and final settlement if the process itself is unfair. 
Having said that I say other concerns will come before the select committee. Those who have negotiated and agreed to this legislation will have worked very hard to bring it to the House at this stage. It is very difficult to work one’s way through a settlement process. I know this is not a settlement bill but it is related to settlements and it is the same process essentially. So their work and their efforts have to be respected and it can take months and months years and years in some cases for this kind of legislation to come before the House. 
So the Green Party will look very carefully at the results of this legislation at the select committee. We will listen carefully to all those who make submissions. We strongly urge the Government to engage with the members of Ngati Wahiao in particular and with all those involved in the settlement to make sure it really is a fair and just process. That is not costly; that is what building honourable Treaty relationships is all about. Kia ora. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 At nearly 5 to 11 at night I am pleased to take a call on the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. We have heard the Minister set out its provisions. The Whakarewarewa Valley Land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve are of significant cultural traditional historical and spiritual importance to Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. The Whakarewarewa Valley Land comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve. 
The bill provides for the fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to be vested as follows. The fee simple estate in the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve is vested in the Crown. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve was vested in the Crown but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it is being vested in the Te Pumautanga trustees and the fee simple estate in the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve was vested in the Crown but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it is being vested in the Te Pumautanga trustees. 
I will make some observations on a couple of matters that my colleague Tau Henare raised. I have just recited what the bill provides for; looking further into the bill we see that the statement is made—certainly in the briefing papers—that this bill does not form part of any Treaty settlement but rather it is intended to assist in building healthy relationships between the Crown and Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. I am as curious as he is as to what that basis is all about. There is nothing wrong at all in the Crown’s wish to build strong and healthy relationships with any iwi but does that mean that in future as we go around the country settling claims we might effect certain transfers just because we need to build these relationships? 
I would have thought that a briefing paper might propose a better and more transparent reason for these transfers than that. I would have thought that maybe the most obvious reason for the transfer is that these are traditional lands. They were held by the iwi—presumably by Ngati Wahiao maybe—and it makes sense in this day and age when the Crown is settling a comprehensive claim with Te Arawa interests that these traditional lands or reserves are returned to the iwi. I am as curious as my colleague Tau Henare is to understand how that plank that basis can assist in building healthy relationships between the Crown and Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. 
I congratulate Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao—no doubt about it. They have been beavering away working very hard for some years now to try to settle all those issues that have long been on the table for them and to seek some conclusion to their grievances. There is no doubt that the Whakarewarewa Reserve has been a matter of contention for them. 
Maybe the Minister needs to have someone prepare the briefing papers better. I certainly thank the Minister for sending them along to us but it just does not hold true and it is not necessarily a good basis on which the Crown might be being seen to transfer lands held by the Crown when indeed there are more valid reasons for the Crown to do this sort of thing. In any event that issue is raised. 
This bill will be referred to a select committee the Maori Affairs Committee and that committee will have plenty of time to explore that issue along with other issues that are raised in the bill. Then there is the issue of the status of the Whakarewarewa Valley lands and Roto-a-Tamaheke as a recreation reserve. What will their status be? The bill provides that the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will remain recreational reserves under the Reserves Act 1977. On the one hand these reserves are being transferred to the iwi yet I ask whether this is another case like— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Mauao. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: —yes—the Mauao reserve in Tauranga. Is this another case like that where the Crown on the one hand gives but on the other hand takes? [ 
Interruption 
] Well it does not matter for the moment. I am not really asking for an answer tonight. But I just raise the issue because it does seem odd. We have these reserves which have these deep cultural spiritual and historical associations and on the face of it they ought to be in the hands of the iwi anyway—in the ownership of the iwi. We still do not know how the Crown got them. That is not set out in this bill. That is another issue as well. 
It is a bill that obviously sets out to return areas of land of deep significance to the iwi yet at the same time it raises issues that I find rather interesting particularly at 11 o’clock at night after being in the House for 15 hours. It is the sixth bill with Maori interests in it that we have had and I suppose that at least if it raises these questions it does help to keep me on my feet and keep me going until midnight. It is an interesting question. We are giving with one hand and we seem to be taking it back with the other. 
These are reserves anyway. What the iwi will be able to do with them will be limited as well. I think that between now and when this bill surfaces again in the new year even though there might be a change of personnel—hopefully there will be—those questions will be answered. 
The only other matter I wish to raise before I resume my seat is that it will not be any surprise to the koroua sitting in the gallery that some of us have had pleas requests from certain interests in Ngati Wahiao who see this area as theirs traditionally and they say that if anyone has a deep association with the area then it is them. The issue that was raised earlier in the affiliate legislation raises itself here as well where we have the coupling of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and of course that is of deep concern to some. I know the koroua understand that. The issue will be raised again here and it will be explored again in the select committee as well. 
But having said those things—and I have said it already but I will say it again—I do congratulate the Te Arawa elders who are in the gallery. I also congratulate them on coming here late at night at 11 o’clock to support the first reading of this bill. It is another part of the settlement that their affiliate has negotiated with the Crown. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa po marie. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker engari i mua i te haere tonu o tenei pire e mihi tonu ki a koutou nga rangatira mai i Te Arawa. Ahakoa kei waenganui po i puta mai te pire nei engari ko te mea nui kua puta mai. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker but before I continue on this bill I acknowledge the leaders of Te Arawa. Although this bill has emerged in the middle of the night the main thing is that it has appeared 
.] 
I am acknowledging the presence of the elders from Te Arawa in the gallery at this time. I said that irrespective of what time of day this Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill has come before the House the main thing I am sure not only for myself and the New Zealand First Party but for the elders of Te Arawa is that it has come before the House. This indicates that the bill is now part of the process and subsequent to this debate it will be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration. This is not a settlement bill as a number of speakers who preceded me have mentioned but it is associated with settlement bills and in particular with the affiliate Te Arawa legislation that was passed earlier today. New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill going to the select committee because it will allow those people who are concerned about a number of issues to bring them to the select committee for consideration. I know that representatives of the Ngati Wahiao runanga attempted to make an appointment to see me today but unfortunately due to the number of legislative items today that concerned Maori I was unable to meet with them. But essentially the concern is in terms of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. I think that many of the concerns expressed during the hearings on the affiliate Te Arawa legislation were a prelude to this particular bill and that is the issue of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. 
As I mentioned during the debate on those bills this is not an issue I believe for this House to debate; rather it is an issue to be resolved by the iwi themselves. The Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve are of significant cultural traditional historical and spiritual importance to Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. They comprise the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve is vested as follows: the fee simple estate in the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve is vested in the Crown. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve was vested in the Crown but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it has been vested in the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa trustees. The fee simple estate in the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve was vested in the Crown but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it has been vested in the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa trustees. 
I do not think there is too much more that needs to be said during this first reading; suffice it to say that there is no doubt of the iconic position that this piece of land—I should not say “piece” of land because it really is of cultural and traditional historical significance to Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao—plays in the wider economy of our country. In fact because of these lands many of our overseas visitors come to New Zealand to enjoy the scenery that this area provides not only for visitors from overseas but also for many New Zealanders. I think it is an indication of the contribution that Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao make to the wider economy of our country. New Zealand First will support this bill being referred to the select committee. Kia ora. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. E Pita he paku korero ki a koe ki a koutou e tangi nei mo ta koutou hoa to tatou hoa a ka nui te tangi o te ngakau i tenei po. Waiho a ia kia moe.  
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to all of us. Pita a little word to you in respect of you collectively mourning your colleague our colleague; there is much grief within us tonight. Let him rest 
.]  
Te Whakarewarewa o Te Ope Taua a Wahiao is perhaps the closest to what we would call a national icon. It is the first location on the tourism map a site of significance for overseas dignitaries and a busy and active business enterprise. Over the centuries a regular stream of distinguished manuhiri have been called on to Pakira Marae at Whakarewarewa as a mark of the esteem in which this nation holds them. I found out that in the 1880s Te Kooti Rikirangi founder of the Ringatu Church was officially welcomed on there. When the late King George V and Queen Mary visited Whakarewarewa in 1901 apparently over 5000 of our people and 3000 Pakeha people arrived in Rotorua. I am told that huge crowds flocked to Whakarewarewa for the civic welcome home of the Maori Battalion when it returned from World War II. And we remember those unique world-famous guides who brought such quality to the tourism trade of this nation: Guide Rangi Guide Maggie—Makereti Papakura—Guide Bubbles and Guide Sophia. Those from Rotorua know that Guide Rangi is said to have made world headlines when she greeted Eleanor Roosevelt First Lady of the United States with a hongi. 
But Whakarewarewa is also much more than a priority on the touring itinerary. In tribal history it is the unique home of atua Te Pupu and Te Hoata who emerged from the core of Papatuanuku breathing in and out creating in their path the geysers the bubbling hot pools and the hot springs. 
From what we heard at the Maori Affairs Committee it seems that Ngati Wahiao are confirmed as the customary holders of the ancestral lands of the Whakarewarewa Valley. They have lived there since way back. They live there to this day. The large carved tupuna whare there is called Wahiao. It is named for these people. The Whakarewarewa Valley land comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve. 
The Tuhourangi people we were told found refuge in the valley after the devastating 1886 eruption of Tarawera mountain. Through Native Land Court decisions in 1883 1888 and 1893 the entire area became vested in the Crown. Ngati Wahiao maintained fee simple title to the adjoining lands through to the present time. Many of the Tuhourangi people settled with their relatives the Ngati Wahiao people at Whakarewarewa and there was some intermarriage—as one would expect—as a result. We heard from whanau who described how their grandmothers and obviously their mothers were of Ngati Wahiao or perhaps their fathers were. Intermarriage happened they all lived in close proximity and there became an association between the two peoples. Those who gave their views at the select committee were clear that the mana whenua has always rested with Ngati Wahiao. 
And so we are here today to initiate a deed with the Crown to provide for the transfer of the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. The Ngati Whakaue link here as I understand it is to what might be called Arikikapakapa and Te Roto-a-Tamaheke. 
This is where the challenge begins. The introduction of vesting legislation to effect the transfer is not without difficulties as other members have said tonight. Although I made reference to Whakarewarewa as a site of national significance it is important from the outset to note that there is dispute around the very notion of giving customary rights to both Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao. I had better say that the matters relating to Ngati Whakaue are relatively clear. As others have said Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao believes that this bill in giving customary rights away is a wrongful alienation of an established property right without consent. Ngati Wahiao have comprehensive documentary evidence of the petitions they have laid before the court dating back to 1883. They describe Tuhourangi as being admitted to Whakarewarewa by a tuku of land later and state that for the purposes of this legislation Ngati Wahiao will be included with the descendants of Tuhourangi. 
I have received a letter that was sent to the Minister of Maori Affairs and Dr Cullen from the hapu nominees for the Whakarewarewa Valley negotiations which will be fundamental to future dialogue and debate. In that letter it is stated that on 5 February 2006 Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa promised that the valley would be returned exclusively to Ngati Wahiao. As I expressed this morning on the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill where these pieces of land have been returned under the affiliate the matter of the uncoupling of Ngati Wahiao from Tuhourangi needs to be sorted because here is the follow-up bill that takes it from Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa to a new entity. Having both bills so close has not helped. 
So what is the problem? Well it seems that the key matter as I say is to recognise the mana of Ngati Wahiao in the arrangement by uncoupling the names. I have tried to get a good handle on this and why the split has come about. It seems to be something like this. The land in question is included in the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa legislation. Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao are an affiliate to that organisation as we learnt this morning. This Whakarewarewa legislation allows that land to be allocated to beneficiaries. So as I understand it Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa calls an endorsement hui at Wahiao to consider the bill and the people at that hui indicate a desire to protect the interests of Ngati Wahiao and they vote to have three Tuhourangi plus three Ngati Wahiao work together with Ngati Whakaue representatives. In order to progress the agreement it is decided to have an endorsement vote. In order to consider those who could participate those who were registered with Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao under the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa arrangement were able to vote in a postal ballot—no problem. Because Ngati Wahiao as an iwi were not recognised under the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa deal as a distinct entity they were required to have a ballot taken at a hui called on 27 July 2008 at Wahiao. Clearly Tuhourangi has a database of beneficiaries and circulates papers to those people not only in Rotorua but throughout the country and abroad. Ngati Wahiao on the other hand rely on those who attend the hui. A concern raised was that the actual landowners could not be present and could not participate in the postal ballot because they were not registered or perhaps were overseas. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speak from the heart. Put the notes away. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I am. As I understand it the postal ballot delivered around 400 responses. The hui ballot attracted around 40-50 votes. The postal ballot was clearly in favour. The hui vote was against. Was it clearly understood that the two votes would be combined? Of that I am not sure but it was not understood by some. The view of Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao was that both methods of voting had to be won; if for example the hui vote was lost as happened that was the end of the deal. This some thought was to give strength to the matter of the significant mana whenua interests of Ngati Wahiao. 
So where are things now? Well I am not too sure about that but the concerns remain. And so with this context in mind it is on the cards and can be pretty much predicted that the select committee process will be fraught with a little bit of conflict. This bill gives effect to the deed to transfer recreational reserve lands Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. The bill also defines a joint trust established by Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao to hold the three sites. In itself all of this may well be challenging. The way in which Ngati Whakaue Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao discuss together how to determine an appropriate division of responsibility and ownership in relation to this site will inevitably be crucial for future relationships. 
The land in question is substantial. The Whakarewarewa Thermal Valley includes the 45 hectare Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the 15 hectare part of the Arikikapakapa Reserve on which the Maori Arts and Crafts Institute stands and of which it has a lease in perpetuity. The valley also includes the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve of 4.3 hectares and part of the Whakarewarewa forest. 
At the heart of this bill is the notion that the transfer is intended to assist the Crown in building a healthy relationship with Ngati Whakaue and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. That is well and good but the crucial matter will be whether our own internal processes can come to a win-win situation for all. Against the background I have tried to paint is there a willingness to do this? Like other members I hope so. Is there anything to lose by those involved talking with each other? Not really; it will not cost anything. Could it be a facilitated process? It is not for me to say but the model is there in the central North Island iwi deal with people like Wira Gardiner. In the end the worst possible outcome would be for us to arrive back here to hear the bill in the select committee process and to find division. Ko taku noa ake ko te ki atu ko te tumanako ia ana ka whakakotahi nei tatau i a tatau kia tutuki pai tenei o nga moemoea. Huri noa i te Whare tena koutou kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Mine is simply to advocate the hope that we become united so that this one of the dreams is completed well. Greetings to us throughout the House and thank you 
.] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
Otira e Te Arawa tangata Te Arawa waka tu tautoko ano nga mihi ki a koutou haere a-tawhiti mai ra i te wa kainga tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. Korua tahi o tena o o tatou ropu torangapu Aotearua Tuatahi e Pita korua tahi tautoko i nga mihi mo tera o o tatou rangatira kua huri ki tua o te arai. Otira kia ora tatou. 
[ 
To you indeed the people and canoe of Te Arawa I rise once again to support the accolades accorded to you who come from a distance from home; greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you. To you two Pita of that political party of ours New Zealand First condolences to that esteemed colleague of ours who has crossed beyond the divide. Greetings to us 
.] 
I stand in support of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and once again—and I do not want to be left out—I declare a conflict of interest. But is it not interesting that today will become a historic day because of the number of Treaty settlement bills that have been passed through this House in a single day? Although it may seem a very long day for the members in this House it has been an even longer day for the representatives of Te Arawa here in the gallery this evening. About this time last evening they would have been just leaving the warmth of their homes in Rotorua to take this big trip down to Parliament to witness this historic day so for them it has been an even longer day and an even longer journey. 
I have heard a number of people in the House today raise a number of issues that I intend to respond to. An issue was raised around that iconic maunga at the entrance to the Tauranga Harbour Mauao. The question asked why the maunga was transferred back in fee simple title yet the Crown retained the ownership. But that was not the case at all. The people of Tauranga agreed to the return of that maunga but they also agreed that the maunga or the estate should remain as a reserve mo ake tonu atu [ 
forever 
]. 
That requires the application of the Reserves Act. The Crown remains associated with the maunga and the estate because of the Reserves Act but at the same time all costs in maintaining the reserve remain with the Crown’s agent the Tauranga City Council and the public liability in terms of health and safety remains with the Crown. I think that is a pretty good outcome. There are people in this House who said that the Crown transferred back to the iwi of Tauranga the shadow but retained the substance. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: We didn’t say that. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: It is true even though Georgie says she never said that. I am saying it is true. The Crown transferred back to the iwi of Tauranga only the shadow and why was that? It is because that is all the Crown had. You see the substance we talk about—and it is the same for Whakarewarewa—is the history the culture the association the ancestral connection and the spirit of the estate. That is the substance and that has always remained with us. No one not even the Crown could take that away from us. So when we talk about the transfer of these iconic assets it is important that we get our thinking right. 
I will come back to the bill. Once again we are talking about a similar arrangement. The Hon Tau Henare was in the House earlier and I am disappointed that he has left because he raised a very relevant matter. He asked why this was not included as part of a Treaty settlement. The other question he asked was “Why now?”. I will answer the latter question first. Why not now? What does time have to do with it? He asked why it was not part of a Treaty settlement. Well the fact is that it was. It was part of the Te Puni Kokiri settlement package but through an agreement between the iwi Ngati Wahaio - Tuhourangi and Ngati Whakaue it was agreed that this part of the estate be removed from the settlement package. As Dr Cullen mentioned earlier today the Crown asked Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa to demonstrate some flexibility and that was done but Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa made it clear that their flexibility was as wide as the Crown’s generosity. So here we have it: the removal of this particular estate the Whakarewarewa estate and Te Roto-a-Tamaheke out of the Pumautanga o Te Arawa settlement package to be resolved separately from that particular settlement. That was not inconsistent with the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that Ngati Whakaue who were not included in the Pumautanga o Te Arawa settlement should be recognised as owners in common with Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao in the valley and this bill achieves that. 
The speakers who stood before me highlighted particular aspects of the bill—in fact in quite significant detail. I felt it important to respond to those queries and criticisms because we do not want people leaving this House tonight with the wrong impression about this whole matter. Mr Henare also asked “Well why?”. My response to him is that it is the right thing to do. There can be a very complicated technical response to a question like that but the answer is quite simple: it is the right thing to do. Because the estate was part of the Pumautanga o Te Arawa settlement package it follows that the Crown’s acquisition of the estate had to have been by raupatu—in other words without the consent of the traditional owners. That is not a new thing. That is not uncommon. That happened around the country and to anyone who says that Te Arawa lost nothing I can say that the record says something completely different. There is not an iwi in Aotearoa that was not affected by the actions of the Crown in terms of the dispossession of their estates. 
The matter of Ngati Wahiao - Tuhourangi and the coupling of the two iwi is something that has been bandied around this House. I do not intend to mention it any more because that is a matter as has been mentioned in this House that Te Arawa as a people will resolve on the marae at home and in their own time. So time is moving; I was told to keep my speech very short by my colleagues here and I believe I have achieved that. Ki a tatou katoa kua huihui nei e te Rangatira a te wa kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
To all of us gathered here and to you Mr Deputy Speaker the time will come so greetings to us all 
.] 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill 
First Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee. The Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill is designed first to allow for trades in securities and other products to be cleared and settled through designated systems that meet the expectations of international and domestic participants in New Zealand’s financial sector; second to align the regulation of exchanges seeking to operate in both the securities and futures markets and to provide that a person approved by the operator of an authorised futures exchange is an authorised futures dealer; and finally to clarify the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development for the market for emissions units. 
Settlement systems are used to give effect to transactions in our financial markets and as such they contribute to a well-functioning capital market. Designation of a settlement system gives statutory backing to the systems rules to support finality of settlement which in turn gives a designated settlement system protection against potential claims from the liquidator of any failed participant. International standards can be met without designation which is why this is not being made mandatory. However without an explicit regulator it can be very difficult to convince participants that a settlement system meets international standards. At present New Zealand’s legislation provides for the designation of payment systems under Part 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. Settlement systems could also be designated under such provision but such designation would provide protection only to the payment component of the transaction not to the settlement of the property component of the transaction. Under the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill the designation regime in Part 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act will be extended to systems that clear and settle products as well as payments. This will be jointly overseen by the Reserve Bank and the Securities Commission. 
The Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill also aligns the regulatory environment for exchanges seeking to operate in both securities and futures markets by amending the Securities Markets Act 1988 so that an exchange registered under Part 2B of that Act may be registered either in respect of securities markets only or in respect of both securities markets and futures markets. The bill also seeks to clarify the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development of the market for emissions units. This applies to both units issued under binding regulations such as the New Zealand emissions trading scheme and units issued in the voluntary market. And can I please make the point to the House and for those who are listening and are interested that none—none—of these technical amendments are necessary for the operation of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. I want to make it clear that this is a facilitative measure. I actually had a feeling that some of the members of the Opposition may have misunderstood that point which is why I wanted to make it crystal clear. 
Simon Power 
: What am I going to talk about now? Ruined another speech! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Now that I have the acceptance of the other side that that is now crystal clear we will not have any unnecessary debate on that matter. The bill amends the Securities Act 1978 to ensure that the issuance of emissions units will not need to meet the requirements of the regulatory regime for offers of securities or the relevant provisions of the Securities Markets Act unless they are part of an investment scheme. In this regard emissions units will be treated like other property. 
The bill also extends the priority provided by section 97 of the Personal Property Securities Act in respect of shares and other securities to emissions units. Under this Act emissions units will be defined as investment securities. Without this amendment the benefits of anonymous exchange trading could be lost because a purchaser would actually otherwise need to check the Personal Property Securities Register to ascertain whether anyone else had a registered security interest over the specific emissions units they were seeking to purchase. Finally in order to make clear that the definition of futures contract extends to a futures contract for emissions units the bill amends the Securities Markets Act to include emissions units in the definition of commodity providing certainty that futures contracts in emissions units are regulated by that Act. 
In conclusion I record my appreciation of the participation of the financial sector throughout the consultation process on this bill and I encourage the financial sector to remain actively involved in the refinement of the bill through the select committee process. I also acknowledge the work of the officials and I appreciate that other parties in the House are keen to see progress on this bill as part of an overarching commitment to building a sound and effective regulatory environment. I commend the bill to the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Well it would be nice to have a piece of legislation to speak on during urgency that was straightforward like maybe a bill on aquaculture or something of that nature—something that was not as complicated as specific and as regulatory in nature as the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. I put it on record now that the Minister has given an undertaking to the House that this matter relates only to emissions units in the general sense rather than creating specific links to the legislation that has recently passed through the House. 
The Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill is designed to create a voluntary designated settlement system regime similar to that currently operating in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act for cash payment systems. Operators of settlement systems will be able to elect but will not be required to seek designated status. It is worth just spending a bit of time on that issue because to the untrained eye it is somewhat complex—and I include my own eyes in that actually. The rules of the system to the extent that they relate to the calculation and discharge of obligations and to remedies on default are enforceable regardless of any enactment or rule of law to the contrary. So it ensures that net settlements and default close-outs can be completed notwithstanding legal uncertainties surrounding netting and set-offs. 
I met with a representative—a regulatory guy—from NZX today to get a briefing on the issue of netting. I found out actually that the individual concerned had been a partner in a law firm I had previously been employed by. He asked me whether I could remember the work I had done on netting while I had been at that particular law firm and no I could not. But in any event I will move on. 
Settlements are irreversible and that ensures that completed settlements cannot be unwound on the subsequent insolvency of a participant. I will come back to that because to my mind with the creation of the clearance process and the centralisation of risk at the hub of that process it is probably the most important aspect of this bill. I will come back to that. The operator of the settlement system receives personal property free of security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act and that enables the settlement system operator to complete settlements free of claims from secured creditors of participants. The security interest held by the system operator and the collateral provided by participants have priority over all other claims on that collateral. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Did they give you a speech as well? 
SIMON POWER 
: No no; they did not I tell the Minister. These are my notes. It is also worth summarising the position in this way: if when an equity is sold and purchased a broker falls over that transaction can be managed individually and isolated and the clearance house takes the risk. In other words there is no ripple effect for any potential systemic failure in the same way that the Reserve Bank carries the risk in the banking sector. That is something we need to ensure for the sake of the way these particular trades occur. 
The idea behind that has been described to me as having the risk centralised to the clearing system so that all obligations flow from that central part of the wheel of trade and obligations surrounding it—that is they are owed to that clearing system. I am advised that that will allow more people into the trading space because they can go to the wholesale clearing house instead of doing it themselves—which is exactly the same way that the Reserve Bank operates in the banking sector. I guess that in the bigger scheme of things the idea behind the legislation is that it will create more confidence in investing in the capital markets because potential investors will know that the clearing house systems are in place and are at the middle of that proposal. 
The establishment of a central counterpart clearing and settlement system in which the system operator assumes the settlement risk of each participant and guarantees the performance of all obligations occurs regardless of the performance by other parties to the transaction. As I said in order to enable the central counterpart clearing and settlement system to do that the operator manages its risk by applying minimum capital and other prudential standards to its participants and by holding collateral from each participant to secure the performance of its obligations. The important thing about this particular proposal is that the system proposed complies fully with the recommendations of the Bank for International Settlements and the International Organization of Securities Commissions for settlement systems. It is intended to comply with the requirements of those standards in relation to being both insolvency remote for want of a better phrase and a true delivery. 
The passage of the bill which National will be supporting at this first reading is a key element in addressing any systemic risk in the NZX’s capital markets. The passing of the bill will also enable the NZX or in fact any other settlement system provider to introduce an internationally compliant clearing and settlement system which will align New Zealand with global best practice. I was fortunate enough to have a discussion with the chair of the Securities Commission 3 or 4 weeks ago I think—maybe it was a bit longer ago—when Ms Diplock explained to me that this was useful legislation in that it provided for an international best-practice model and that it was something we should look at carefully. I am grateful for that advice. 
I do not intend to add any more at this stage other than to note that in  
Business Day 
 on Wednesday 24 September the head of Australia’s sharemarket warned that his country could go the way of New Zealand and become “internationally irrelevant” if its market is fragmented too much by new competitors. It is worth members who have an interest in this area reading that particular article in order to ensure that we cross off some of those more serious issues. I do not intend to quote from the release but because it is interesting in nature I would recommend to members who have an interest in this area that they make sure they are aware of what the Australian Stock Exchange chairman Maurice Newman is saying about global market relevancy and also about the importance of scale. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Setting aside all vested interests as I am sure he was. 
SIMON POWER 
: I am sure that is right I say to the Minister. On that basis when we are dealing with scale and investment in capital markets it would be National’s view that this particular bill can only aid that increase in scale and size. Of course we hope the task force that is looking into the capital markets will also be able to give us as a Parliament some guidance on how to achieve that goal outside the reasonably narrow confines of the legislation that is currently before the House. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 As my colleague Mr Power just noted we will be voting for the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill at its first reading and voting for it to be referred to the select committee—Commerce Committee or Finance and Expenditure Committee— 
Nathan Guy 
: Commerce. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: The Commerce Committee. That is very good. 
This is good legislation from what I can see at the moment and it is a step-up. As Simon Power and the Minister of Commerce noted it is a step-up to global best practice. I declare that I have operated and used futures exchanges in all sorts of jurisdictions starting on the New Zealand exchange many many years ago. 
This bill helps the capital markets framework of New Zealand to remove some of the anomalies and weaknesses in the existing model. We have the Reserve Bank Austraclear model and the New Zealand Exchange’s model and the emerging model through which it is hoped to develop a carbon trading scheme. As the Minister said yes that is not essential to this bill but this legislation is very important to the creation of that. 
I gave a speech on this bill this morning at a conference in Auckland. We talked about futures. It might be important for anyone who is listening to understand what the futures market is because many people think it is the price of something in the future. Actually it is not. It is the price today plus or minus the opportunity cost of the delay in receiving or delivering that product—whatever it is—and the risk of settlement. That is actually all it is. When we hear about oil futures gold futures or anything like that all that means is the price today and the cost of carrying borrowing or lending money until the day of the future settlement. That is all it is. It is not the price of something in the future. 
I note that because when the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill came through the Finance and Expenditure Committee many people confused the futures price of carbon in Europe or something like that with the idea that that was the price it was going to be in the future. We can look at any analysis we like but it is not that at all. It is merely the price today plus or minus the cost of carry plus or minus any credit risk and plus or minus any settlement risk which in fact this bill before us aims to fix up. 
We are talking here about settlements for the futures and emissions exchanges etc. but it is a long way from the original futures markets which were actually on the floor. We used to see these guys and we still see them on the stock exchange where they have all sorts of colours. All they seem to do on those floors is shout very very loudly and they are very tall. The tallest people and the ones who shouted the loudest on those particular exchanges in the old days were very successful. Now much of this stuff is on screen in the virtual world and across the Internet. Huge huge volumes are traded. 
As the Minister started to say this is where many of the issues around the problems that are coming from the United States at the moment come from because via futures we can have massive leverage. It is from massive leverage that we can create a very small operator that can have huge exposure. Sometimes and there have been instances of this in the past the exposure and losses those operators are incurring are more than what they can meet; thus there is a settlement or payment risk. That is exactly what this bill is trying to make less harmful. The bill will never eliminate that. 
There is an example that I remember from about 1988 or 1989 right here in New Zealand. The eyes of the world were upon New Zealand because there was a particular bank in New Zealand that had a massive short position on Government bonds at the time. Let us say there were a billion of those particular Government bonds in the market issued by the Reserve Bank or the Debt Management Office. The particular futures contract was a deliverable contract which meant that when it was settled it was not a payment risk. Someone actually had to front up with the particular bonds if they had been sold short via the futures exchange and had to deliver them. In this particular instance the total number of short futures in the market was 1.1 or 1.2 billion. Someone had sold more bonds than there actually were. The New Zealand financial markets at that time were in crisis and it was very interesting that what the Reserve Bank and Debt Management Office did in the end was to issue more bonds. Their first job was to try to save the market. 
As my colleague noted the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill picks up the payment and settlement system. There is still huge risk involved here but it now takes away individual risk and puts risk only on the settlement be it the Reserve Bank Austraclear model or the New Zealand Exchange emerging model whatever that might be. We still do not know; it will be interesting to see. We will go through this at the select committee and we will look at how this works for deliverables. For example we will see whether the New Zealand Exchange’s carbon futures will be deliverable or cash settled and netted; Mr Power explained to us what netting was earlier on. 
I will not talk for too much longer to the relief of many. It is 10 to 12 we are in urgency and one of the most urgent bills for the Government is this particular bill. I do wonder why this one has taken so long to come out because it is actually an eminently sensible bill. Perhaps it was tied up because we have the Capital Markets Development Taskforce looking at things like this. If only the Government looked at the harder questions regarding how to help offer debt to our capital markets it could start to reduce the risk premium on New Zealand’s capital markets which it is fully to blame for and for fiascos such as the Auckland airport sale—or non-sale. The political interference in that process had the effect of “shallowing” New Zealand’s capital markets not deepening them. As many people agreed with us at a conference today— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh so you want to sell Auckland airport? Thanks for that. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: As the Minister is now chipping in I could talk about something else that could be used to help. However it is 10 minutes to 12 o’clock so I will let that go. I look forward to this bill going to the Commerce Committee and I look forward to the more technical contributions of the next speaker. Thank you. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During my speech when the Minister and I were exchanging views on a particular matter she asked me whether NZX had written my speech. I said no but that I was reading from notes. In the interests of making sure I am not misleading the House I should say that I was provided with a briefing note from NZX which I scribbled notes all over. On reflection I wanted to clarify that matter before the proceedings. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Power. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. At 10 minutes to 12 o’clock almost near the end of business when the debate on this particular bill is coming to a close and in order to give my colleague Mr Groser a good shot I want to make sure that the Maori Party maintains its record and speaks on every bill that has come into the House. I say that the Maori Party supports this bill at its first reading. Kia ora tatou. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 The member preceding me Te Ururoa Flavell is very gracious. I thought I was going to be on the morning watch as a consequence of his rising to take a call. 
National supports the first reading of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill and I will focus for a few minutes on the emissions trading side of the bill. In the deeply unlikely event that people are listening to the debate at this very late stage let me make it clear that National supports this bill’s setting up of a regulatory framework for emissions trading although we still have the most serious reservations about the underlying substantive bill to which the emissions trading scheme relates. The reason we support this bill is that irrespective of the design of any emissions trading scheme National recognises that we need a proper regulatory system in place that has domestic credibility that has international credibility that protects property rights and that deepens the markets. That is neutral to the actual substantive concept of the emissions trading scheme it underwrites. Rather than reiterate the technical description my colleague Simon Power so ably put out about the features of this bill that lead us to— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You mean “NZX so ably” Tim. 
TIM GROSER 
: No—I think there was benefit from the briefing and I heard the Minister read a speech that I am sure she herself spent a great deal of time crafting personally. 
We will support this bill irrespective of an emissions trading scheme that National will introduce and recently in a speech by our deputy leader there were set down six key principles on which we will base the construction of a more balanced emissions trading scheme. But we will need a framework which this bill sets out for the actual trading of the emissions units. 
I think that most important for this bill in terms of trying to understand what it will achieve is to see that it is very much a work in progress. We are essentially trialling here an administrative system of great complexity and potentially enormously important economic effects. If ever the old phrase “the law of unintended effects” applies I would argue it applies here. I think that it is a very commonplace observation but utterly correct to say in relation to this regulatory change that the two parts taken together—the substantive emissions trading scheme and this bill implementing the emissions trading process—are the most important reregulation of the New Zealand economy since the reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s. Although one could make an argument that at least those reforms were on well-trailed grounds in terms of international experience this legislation is literally entering uncharted waters here both in respect of the technical provisions of an emissions trading scheme and the substantive provisions of the emissions trading scheme it is intended to facilitate. 
For that reason the essential difference between the parties not on this bill but on the underlying policy issue is that we think the transition path that New Zealand is now undertaking for the very first time has many many risks associated with it. Therefore we think a much more prudential approach is utterly warranted. We see essentially when we step back from the technical substance of this paper to look at what it is actually trying to achieve that there are two separate questions here. The first is whether we need to have policy frameworks such as provided for in this bill which establish a response to the question: are anthropogenic greenhouse gases a serious problem that the international community needs to address? That is one question. The other question is: what is the right balanced policy response? People try to put those two together but they are actually quite separate. 
I believe that it is very clear the consensus has grown not just in this country but internationally on the first question—that we need to take this seriously and that we need frameworks such as this bill to deal with the problem. We can see that with the change in the Australian Government the Australians have come on board with ratification. The two United States presidential candidates are making very promising statements that the United States will also come on board so the consensus is growing. Of course the big question about developing countries is still before us. So that is that side of the question. On the policy response side of the question this bill is addressing again we can see a consensus emerging that we have to put a price on carbon and that it is probably better to do that via a trading system. The consensus has grown within New Zealand and I think it is clear that the consensus is growing internationally. 
But this is very much a work in progress. I will guarantee that a future Parliament will have to come back to this to make changes in the light of practical experience and most important in terms of international negotiations yet to occur. Given the hour I will stop at this point but I think it is very important that people understand that this is an issue of immense complexity and that the deeply difficult transition issues in moving towards a decarbonised economy will take decades to address. Although I think we have the framework for a reasonable trading regime that will eventually establish an international market in emissions units we must be prepared to revisit this issue in due course. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee. 
Sitting suspended from 11.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)