Fox MaramaMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Finally the opportunity to address the claims that are coming from the Opposition. Let me just start with this. When we—Tracey Martin: Well actually it's the guy next to you—it's that guy.MARAMA FOX: Would you like to hear the answer? When we negotiated this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—I am referring to SOP 281 in my name—we did so with Pure Hawke's Bay. We had its people on the phone throughout the entire drafting of the wording of this Supplementary Order Paper. We negotiated the terminology. We asked whether we should use crops for pasture" "crops for human consumption" "crops for animal consumption" "crops for forestry" and so on and so on and so on. In their words they asked us "to use 'crops' and not determine them by their individual parts because then if there is a bit that we missed out accidentally it is specific in the law and it is too late."—their words. We had to negotiate to get those in. They were actually more happy to do that and Pure Hawke's Bay asked us to do so on its behalf.Therefore we went and we said: "OK. Well we need to make sure that this does in fact cover the things that we believe it covers because I don't want a thin slice of pastrami; I want a carve-out that we can bake on." But here is a point first before I go to what I believe that that carve-out does give us: even if we did not get a carve-out for GE the iwi chairs' technical advisers were happy to go with it. That was because in order to enact new section 360D powers—and remember we have already got our sections 360A 360B and 360C—the Minister is obligated to prove that there is a duplication of law. He has to prove that. It is subject to judicial review.So when he does that he has to notify the public and the relevant local and iwi authorities of what the Minister proposes to do. He has to create a process that considers all the parties and gives them adequate time and opportunity to have their say. He needs to receive the report from that process with the recommendations and feedback and then give an evaluation report of that for everybody to see. Having done all of that to ensure that there was transparent and robust decision-making the Minister must have particular regard to the evaluation report that then comes to him and make that public and all of that is subject to judicial review.So there were members of our negotiation team who said "Well actually if it is that onerous a lockdown would be very difficult for the Minister to ever enact—ever." and we said: "Well I'm not so sure about that. I want a carve-out please because I don't believe that that is so." So I can see that it is all there and it is subject to judicial review and those are all of the exact steps from the law that he has to go through.So then we get the wording as approved by Pure Hawke's Bay—shall I say that one more time: Pure Hawke's Bay—and we had it—Kris Faafoi: They're not the judge.MARAMA FOX: Well that is all right. You have asked me to answer the question. You have put the question before me and I am simply attempting to answer. So then these are the terms we have agreed with the Minister's office that we can use for words—for our lines—about what that means: "The Māori Party supports these amendments on the understanding that as negotiated with the Government they preserve the region's ability under local plans to regulate all types of GM crops in their territories including forestry and grasses and any activities involving the growing of GM crops whether for commercial or other purpose." Thank you. Shall I say it one more time or are we clear now?Hon Ruth Dyson: Where is it? Where are those words?MARAMA FOX: Well they are here in my hand. These are agreed lines that I am allowed to use in relation to this Supplementary Order Paper. I have just read out from the law the process that under section 360D the Minister is able to use. So here in our SOP that is what we determined "crops" means including grasses and forestry. Those are in my notes. So that is our Supplementary Order Paper. This is determined by Pure Hawke's Bay and therefore with the agreement that we have been able to get we believe that does get to have it covered. Obviously that might be up to judicial review in the future but the Minister would have to act only if he believes that there is a duplication of the law and he has to prove that through judicial review having already gone through those onerous steps.So it is up to you actually I say to the Labour Party—and specifically to Meka Whaitiri because this is your region—whether you want to disagree with Pure Hawke's Bay and vote against my Supplementary Order Paper. Take that on board. That is completely up to you. You can choose to do that if you wish and you can explain yourselves to those people because they have endorsed it. I have been to seek the approval of the iwi and they have endorsed it. I have been to seek the approval of the chair of the iwi of Ngāti Kahungunu and he has endorsed it. So if you would like to vote against it you go right ahead and you can explain why you would do that to the region of the Hawke's Bay. And let us include the Northland people as well because they are very concerned about it and include every other GE-free organisation that has sat in my office over the last year whom we have consulted widely with throughout this entire process.I know that there are some people who are a little bit annoyed about that but we have attempted to ensure that collaborative planning processes can happen in regions with iwi and with all groups concerned about the betterment of their region to enact what they believe is necessary for the growth and development and protection of the resources in their region. Mana whakahono arrangements do it. They do it through collaboration with iwi. Local governments are able to do it and if the Minister would like to enact he has to override and prove—prove—that there is a duplication of legislation. So the onus is on the Minister to prove that. Local government and regional councils can feel assured that their decision-making ability in their territories has been upheld.We have not sold them down the river. And yes historic the Māori Party is because nobody would have thought that this Māori Party would have the influence over a right-wing Government to allow it to have a voice. I am appalled—I am appalled—that the Labour Party which purports to represent the interests of Māori would dare to vote against the voice of those people who carved out this agreement by our side. [Interruption] Oh no do not worry—Mr Chair thank you—I think the people have well and truly seen that there is an overwhelming backing down from supporting iwi to have their say which is coming from different parties in this Parliament because there is some sort of irrational fear that a mana whakahono arrangement in conjunction with the collaborative planning process of their own local and regional council cannot be upheld. I think that is irrational and I stand amazed.I stand amazed at New Zealand First which rolled out the "Iwi/Kiwi" debate just in time for the election. But do you know what? Carry on because every time you do your old people who listen to you belittling Māori are turning around and saying "Why did we do that? We are coming home."—coming home to the party that is representing their interests in collaboration with the iwi that those members pretend to support.So I do believe that the Supplementary Order Paper that I have presented tonight does include a carve-out for crops as described by me in this speech. You can check the Hansard if you are a bit sceptical about that and quote me if you like. But vote against the Supplementary Order Paper at your peril if you come from the Hawke's Bay Northland or any other region that thinks GE is important to it."