Boscawen John: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Boscawen John: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 11 May 2011. Volume:672;Page:18587. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Members of the House and those observing the debate on this legislation will know that it would be normal for the ACT Party to take a call immediately after the Green Party and before the Maori Party. But I took the opportunity to listen to Rahui Katene’s speech this afternoon before I responded. I thought it was very important to hear the justification both for the Treaty clause and for the process with regard to it before I responded. 
I will deal in turn with the comments of Ruth Dyson and Rahui Katene but first of all I would like to refute one of Rahui Katene’s last statements when she said the sole reason for the ACT Party opposing this legislation as she had been advised this morning was the Treaty clause. That is absolutely not correct; that is not the sole reason. We did not decide to oppose this legislation this morning; we decided to oppose it this afternoon at 1 minute to 2. The reason that we decided to oppose the legislation at 1 minute to 2 is as I notified the Government last night that we are not happy about the process. I notified it that we have a confidence and supply agreement which we are absolutely committed to supporting as Mr Steven Joyce the Minister for Communications and Information Technology knows with regard to his ultra-fast broadband bill. But it is a mutual arrangement and is an arrangement that calls for respect on both sides.  
It is a condition of our confidence and supply agreement that we be given 48 hours’ notice of any significant amendments. My advice yesterday morning was that Heather Roy who was the ACT MP in the House on Thursday afternoon was not aware until 5 o’clock when she walked into the House and heard the speech of the Hon Ruth Dyson objecting very strongly to this legislation that the Treaty clause was to go into it. That was the first notification that the ACT Party had of it. Heather Roy raised it at our caucus yesterday morning; I took it up with National last night. I discussed it further with National this morning and I awaited a response from Nick Smith when I came into the House just before 2 o’clock. He gave me no evidence or advice whatsoever that this clause had been advised to the ACT Party prior to it being tabled in the House at 3.31 last Thursday. So I refute first of all Rahui Katene’s comments that the sole reason that we are opposing this legislation is the Treaty clause. It is both the clause and the process with regard to it.  
I also refer to Rahui Katene’s comments when she said—and I was very pleased to hear this from her—“Less than a week ago I successfully negotiated the inclusion of the Treaty of Waitangi clause”. Less than a week ago was prior to 5 p.m. last Wednesday and once again I say to the Government that we have a confidence and supply agreement. The ACT Party will respect it. We have been very very good at providing stable Government. We intend to provide that all the way up to the 26 November election day but we will not be taken for granted.  
When Ruth Dyson rose this afternoon she said she was a little disappointed to have to vote against this legislation. She referred in particular to the fact that her party had not been properly consulted on this particular clause. Like Ruth Dyson I am also disappointed to have to stand this afternoon to speak against this legislation and the way in which it has been handled by the Government. This is very significant legislation. The Treaty of Waitangi provision is a very significant provision and if members had any doubt about that they had only to listen to Rahui Katene’s comments when she talked about it being a triumph for the Maori Party. It is a pity that the other members of this House and other New Zealanders were not accorded the respect from National of being told what is actually in this legislation what the Government was planning rather than Rahui Katene simply tabling the Treaty clause as an amendment at 3.31 last Thursday afternoon.  
I would like to read and record into  
Hansard  
several paragraphs of Rahui Katene’s press release from last Thursday. It is headed up: “Maori Party succeeds in inserting Treaty clause into Environment Protection law” and reads: “Environment spokesperson for the Maori Party Rahui Katene is delighted that her amendment to help to ‘recognize and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi’ in the Environment Protection Authority Bill was supported during the committee stages of the Bill today. The amendment ensures that the Environment Protection Authority Bill and any person acting on behalf of the Bill must ‘comply with the requirements of an environmental act in relation to the Treaty’. ‘Amidst all the noise of the political theatre played out over recent days it is extremely important to me’ ”—that is Rahui Katene—“ ‘and the Maori Party that we consolidate and strengthen the role of the Treaty as a living document. I hope that my amendment will enable tangata whenua to exercise influence and authority in decision-making processes related to environment protection’ said Mrs Katene.”  
Moving on to the second-to-last paragraph—I will skip a few paragraphs—the press release says: “ ‘It is also gratifying that through this SOP we will be able to maintain and improve opportunities for tangata whenua to contribute to the decision-making process through the establishment of a Maori advisory committee’ said Mrs Katene.” Mrs Katene in her press release asks “ ‘What does all this mean?’ ” The release says “ ‘It means we are one step closer to understanding—and acting—in a way which upholds article two of Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ ”—in effect “chiefly authority over lands villages and all things precious”. That was obviously news to members of the Labour Opposition. It was news to members of the ACT Party and I wonder how many National Ministers to whom this was also news because I can think of a few. I wonder how many National backbenchers this was news to and I wonder how many New Zealanders this was news to. I wonder how many New Zealanders know we are voting here today on legislation that will go further towards understanding and acting on “chiefly authority over lands villages and all things precious”.  
The ACT Party stands for one law for all. We absolutely stand for private property rights whether they be Maori private property rights Pasifika private property rights or Pakeha private property rights. That is absolutely fundamental: one law for all. We have campaigned on that theme for several years and I suspect there is no party more concerned about Maori and Maori underachievement than the ACT Party. I say that because my colleague Sir Roger Douglas introduced a bill that would allow young people to take the first opportunity to get on the employment ladder at the age of 16 and 17 years old—youth rates—and National voted against it despite opposing the abolition of youth rates strongly when it was in Opposition. I make a promise to the House this afternoon on behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of Dr Brash the leader of the ACT Party outside Parliament that we will spend the next 7 months on making sure that New Zealanders understand these issues very very honestly.  
Let me come back to two quick points. The comment was made that the ACT Party actually supported the Treaty of Waitangi clause at the Committee stage. I say for the sake of the  
Hansard 
 that that is not the case. Heather Roy voted against the Treaty clause in the Committee stage last Thursday afternoon. She continued to vote for other aspects of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill in part in the Committee stage but she voted against this clause and the ACT Party is voting against this legislation. I should stress that the main bill is the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. We are voting against that bill. We will also vote against the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. The original bill was broken into six bills. We will support the other four but we will vote against the Environmental Protection Authority Bill as it now is with the Treaty clause in it.  
I make one quick point about the emissions trading scheme. Ruth Dyson continues to perpetuate an untruth about the emissions trading scheme. What is causing us to pay more for electricity is the $350 million of annual subsidies to foresters—$350 million for trees substantially planted before 2008. I have not had time to elaborate on that message but I certainly will do so in future.