Volume 634 Week 26 - Tuesday 12 September 2006 
Volume 634 Week 26 - Tuesday 12 September 2006 
[Volume:634;Page:5327] 
Tuesday 12 September 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Obituaries 
His Majesty King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV King of Tonga 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House notes with sadness the death of His Majesty King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV King of Tonga; that it extends its condolences to the members of the Royal Family and the people of Tonga at this time and looks forward to continuing good relations with Tonga. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Motions 
Terrorist Attack—September 11 2001 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House recalls with sadness the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 5 years ago with their shocking scale of devastation and loss of life; that the House remembers the two New Zealand citizens who along with so many citizens of the United States and more than 90 other countries were killed that day; and that the House reaffirm its condemnation of all forms of terrorism wherever and whenever they occur and its resolve to support efforts to eliminate terrorism. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Privilege 
Officers of the House—Attendance at Employment Court 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Clerk of the House of Representatives and other officers of the House to have leave to attend before the Employment Court at Wellington and subject to article 9 of section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688 to give evidence in the action  
Alan Witcombe 
 v  
Clerk of the House of Representatives 
 (No: WRC12/06). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Draft Report 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Auditor-General’s draft report into election campaign advertising expenditure paid from parliamentary appropriations that “it’s all very well for the Auditor-General to make up rules after the event when parties have gone to the referee before they kicked the ball”; if so what steps will her Government take once his final report is presented? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I agree with that statement from New Zealand First’s Peter Brown which the member has just quoted. As I have previously advised we will consider the report when it is presented. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can she confirm the statement made by her ministerial colleague Pete Hodgson on radio this morning in relation to the Labour Party pledge card that “No we won’t be paying the money back.”; if so what is the point of the Auditor-General’s report if the Labour Party has already made up its mind to ignore it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can confirm that if spending is within Parliament’s rules there is no reason to pay it back. The Auditor-General appears to be questioning the rules themselves. He has of course signed off audit certificates for exactly such spending under the same relevant rules in the past. 
Dr Don Brash 
: If the Auditor-General does in his final report declare the use of the Labour leader’s budget to pay for the pledge card to be unlawful will she as Prime Minister ask the Labour Party to pay the money back? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have made it clear that if spending is within Parliament’s rules there is no reason to pay it back. The Labour Party considers it neither fair nor a process of natural justice to change the rules after the event. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What differentiates the commitment card put out by Labour in 2005 and that put out by National in 2002 and has she heard any offer from the National Party to pay back the cost of that commitment card by National in 2002 if the two are the same? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: They are the same rules and exactly the same form of publication. I stress that the same Auditor-General in 2002 gave an unqualified certificate of audit to that spending in 2002 and there was no reason to believe that the same approach would not be taken in 2005. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What message is she and her Minister attempting to send about the important role of the Auditor-General given that she refused to meet him in April of last year when he sought to avoid any misunderstandings about the use of a leader’s budget and when one of her Ministers says that the Labour Party will defy the Auditor-General before his report is even finalised? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The message I am sending is that political parties are entitled to consistency in the application of the Auditor-General’s findings and they are also entitled to a process of natural justice. I also point out to the member that the purpose he attributed to the Auditor-General’s seeking meetings was not the one in the Auditor-General’s letter. The Auditor-General sought to discuss his draft report which he had already discussed with members of the parliamentary Labour Party before writing it. Further he sought a meeting only with representatives of the two large parties and Labour did not think that was appropriate. If the Auditor-General was going to meet with parties he needed to seek to meet with all parties and not just with two. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How can she reconcile her Government’s expectation that taxpayers should meet their obligations to the Inland Revenue Department and that beneficiaries should repay any overpayments received from Work and Income with a statement made by one of her Ministers that the Labour Party will not repay the $446000 used to fund the pledge card even if the Auditor-General finds that that payment was unlawful? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Labour Party plays by the rules. In no material respect had the rules changed between 2002 and 2005. The Auditor-General gave an unqualified audit certificate to the 2002 spending—and that was the same Auditor-General with the same rules and the same kind of material. The signal we are sending is that we expect consistency and natural justice to apply. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What on the issue of election spending would be the consequences of a political party colluding with a third party to evade the Electoral Act by ensuring material being published was not attributable to that political party? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have made clear my view that great lengths were gone to to ensure that the $1.2 million of spending to which the member refers was not attributable. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement by the Auditor-General in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 in relation to unlawful payments from party leaders’ funds that “… the remedy is to reimburse it. That’s the end of the matter as far as we are concerned.”; if so will she follow his advice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That may well be a remedy where spending occurred outside the rules. But where spending has occurred within the rules—the same rules that led the Auditor-General to give an unqualified audit certificate at the previous election—then no consistency is being applied if there is an attempt to change them after the event. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What would the Prime Minister on the question of the issue of election spending—and indeed what would the people of New Zealand—make of a political party providing legal assistance to a third party that had publicly declared its intention to solicit votes for that particular political party in order to ensure the political party could avoid having the costs of that campaign attributed to its campaign costs? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If that were indeed true it would suggest that the level of collaboration between that political party and that other third party funding source did indeed occur although we note that it has been denied in the past. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Who should interpret the rules around the use of taxpayers’ funds if not the Auditor-General? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that the Auditor-General’s problem is with the rules themselves. However I point out that he gave an unqualified audit certificate to spending under exactly the same material rules in 2002. So one has to question why a different approach is being taken now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister deem it in the public interest to be aware of the involvement of political parties in collusion with third parties seeking to avoid the import of the Electoral Act when it comes to election campaign costs? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It seems to me that that is a question very wide of the mark of the original question. In any event what relevance would the Prime Minister’s opinions have in this particular case? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The issue at the forefront of the original question is the issue of election spending. That being the case the Prime Minister is giving her opinion in respect of every answer thus far. My question is no different. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: With respect Madam Speaker Dr Brash’s question goes to the heart of the expenditure of Parliamentary Service funds by the Labour Party for election purposes. That is quite a different matter from that raised by Mr Peters. More specifically it asks the question about the Labour Party’s response to the Auditor-General’s report. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I want to add just one point. If Mr Brownlee’s objection had any merit he would have raised it in respect of my first and second questions. He did not and therefore he is caught by the precedent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you for your assistance in this matter. The Standing Orders require that Ministers give their opinions on matters of ministerial responsibility. It may well be that the member wishes to rephrase the question but the way it was phrased it would not appear to have ministerial responsibility. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister had any reports as to the import and the longstanding import of the Electoral Act in respect of the public interest and is she aware of the involvement of political parties in collusion with third parties seeking to avoid the import of the Electoral Act when it comes to parties’ election campaign costs? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That takes us back to the content of the primary question. Although the Prime Minister can be asked whether she has seen a report—of course any Ministers can be asked whether they have seen reports—surely the report must have some relevance to the question that is being asked. The relevancy of course would be the Auditor-General’s report. Further the question is highly hypothetical and invites the Prime Minister to comment when clearly if any such report has been produced it is hypothetical and not factual. In essence my point of order is that the question being asked must relate tightly to the primary question. To go as wide and as general as that seems a little bit too much. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance on this matter. The question is broad but it does relate to the central issue in the question asked. As the member is aware of course hypothetical questions are in order under the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have made clear my concern about the use of third party funding in the last election campaign and I look forward to working with other parties on ways of ensuring that in future our election process is not subjected to those sorts of pressures. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think a lot of the difficulties that might appear to exist around this particular issue could be solved if you yourself took a particular course of action. I ask whether you could consider releasing the minutes of Parliamentary Service Commission meetings from the early part of 2003 right up until the final part of 2004 where several iterations of the rules relating to this matter were discussed by members and circulated largely because of the concern over spending in the 2002 election and a subsequent commitment from all parties to stick rigidly to the rules for 2005 with the further addition that where such a spending breach occurred—as in the case of the $446000—responsibility for that spending would lie directly with either the party leader or its members. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not need any help. As the member is aware that is a matter for the Parliamentary Service Commission. It meets tomorrow I think so it is a matter that could be addressed there. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect the real point at issue here is whether a select committee report or otherwise constitutes the law of this nation and it most certainly does not. The question is absolutely and utterly irrelevant. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: With respect that was not a point of order. 
Democracy—Participation 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on efforts to ensure students can learn the skills they need to become active participants in New Zealand’s democracy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The new draft curriculum identifies the competencies and values that enable young New Zealanders to live together in a diverse and democratic society. This includes children understanding the value of integrity and how to act ethically. In addition the social studies curriculum gives children the opportunity to learn how the systems of government work and reflect different types of decision making. 
Dianne Yates 
: What other reports has he seen about opportunities for students to participate in learning about democracy in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a  
Sunday Star-Times  
report of a school student push polling on behalf of the National Party. The report tells of a Hamilton woman receiving a call from a teenager who purported to be conducting a political phone poll. The young person admitted he was encouraged to ridicule people when they did not respond in the appropriate way. It turned out that the teenager attended a local Exclusive Brethren school and the poll was a “homework assignment” for his class. That is hardly an example of teaching young people how to act ethically. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a very interesting answer from the Minister. Many of us read the  
Sunday Star-Times  
article and I would ask him to table his evidence that verifies the names of the individuals who are party to that story. Otherwise of course we are left believing that it is just a piece of fiction. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Minister has referred to the new draft curriculum can he explain to the House now that he has a new draft curriculum how he will tell whether it works for individual children in lifting their learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Of course the core of any education system is how we teach what we teach and how we assess. So three major strands of work are around the process of training teachers of developing a new curriculum and of new assessment tools at the primary school level and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement at the secondary school level. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization that quality education must include “values and civic education especially for human rights and democracy peace and universally shared values such as citizenship tolerance non-violence and dialogue among cultures and civilisations”; if so will he reconsider the draft curriculum’s complete failure to mention Te Tiriti o Waitangi—this nation’s founding document—and consider making the study of civics an integral and compulsory part of our curriculum? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There are a lot of questions in there and I guess at the headline level I would agree with the earlier statements in relation to the Treaty that have been canvassed here. There is a consultation process going on. As I have said to the member there is an opportunity for her to make a submission around the Treaty issues. The issues of civics of course are covered throughout the history and social studies parts of the curriculum. Of course schools these days with this style of curriculum have the ability to make use of those areas of learning through a whole range of curriculum areas. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker tena tatou katoa. How can students respect and understand Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a basis of our modern democracy if it is not discussed as a key feature of the school curriculum? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They cannot. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Would the Minister agree that removing maths from the school curriculum will lead to students becoming proficient in maths; if not why does he think that removing the Treaty of Waitangi from the school curriculum will lead to a greater understanding by students of the nature of our democracy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would agree with the first part of the question. As to the second part it has not been removed. I would also remind the member of four things: one it is in the Act; two it is in the goals; three it is in the guidelines to schools; and four it will be embodied in a Maori version of the curriculum next year. 
Election Campaign Spending Cap—Police Inquiries 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Did the Police seek and receive a legal opinion or advice from the Crown Law Office in relation to the investigation into an alleged breach of the campaign spending cap in section 214B of the Electoral Act 1993 by the New Zealand Labour Party; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised by the police today that in the course of their investigations the police requested Crown Law advice on all allegations in regard to section 214B of the Electoral Act 1993. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why when the Crown Law Office advice to both the Chief Electoral Officer and the Auditor-General made it clear that the pledge card was an election expense did the police seem to reach the opposite conclusion of that despite receiving legal advice from the same authority? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I draw the member’s attention to the advice given by the Solicitor-General on 8 March 1993 that the commissioner cannot be subject to binding policy directions in respect of the enforcement of criminal law in any particular area or type of offending. The legal opinion also states: “It is entirely a matter for the Commissioner to direct a law enforcement strategy in respect of types or places of crime”. In other words I have no responsibility for the decisions that the police make in terms of whom they will or will not prosecute. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When acting deputy commissioner Roger Carson announced that the police had decided not to prosecute Labour saying: “Crown Law’s involvement in this case has been and continues to be to provide legal advice to assist with the various investigations but decision-making is and has been entirely a matter for Police” did he mean that the police had received Crown Law advice and decided to ignore it; if not what did he mean? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot answer for acting deputy commissioner Roger Carson. I have no knowledge of why the police made the decisions in the way they did. As I pointed out that is entirely their decision to make not one that is made by the Minister of Police in any way shape or form. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister concerned that the police’s grasp of electoral law was so poor that the Chief Electoral Officer met with the police after they had announced their findings in the investigation into Labour to make it clear to them that he thought they had got it wrong; if not why is she not concerned about that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I am not concerned about the judgment of the police at all. I suppose if I wanted to—but I have not—I could have questioned why the police did not charge the National Party for not paying its GST because they also made it clear in Roger Carson’s comments that the inclusion of GST was stipulated to all political parties and that that was made clear before the election. The reason the police were not in the position to charge the National Party was that National claimed there was no written agreement with its advertising company and therefore the police did not know whom to charge. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she agree with the statement contained in the police area report on the investigation: “Essentially the Labour Party says the Electoral Act did not apply so there is no wilful contravention.”; can she explain when the Labour Party became the arbiter on when laws apply and when they do not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: At the end of the day those who decide whether the law applies will be those in the proper position to do so. However I note that the police said: “This issue that has involved all political parties could be resolved by a simple rule that prohibits the use of Parliamentary Service funds for advertising during the 3-month period preceding a general election.” The police went on to say that the Auditor-General in his review of June 2005 said that following the 2005 election comprehensive guidelines should be written to provide direction on expenditure under parliamentary rules for political advertising. That is what the police said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the Parliamentary Service rules that make it abundantly clear that Parliamentary Service funding should not be used for election purposes and to table with that document the minutes of meetings from 2003 right through to the end of 2004 in which all political parties agreed they would stick to those very clear rules for the 2005 election. 
Document not tabled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister of Police agree with the statements also contained in the police area report that “A brochure expounding the virtues of supporting a particular political party is permitted to be published and distributed at Government expense.”; if so how does she reconcile that with the findings of the Auditor-General and the Crown Law advice—completely the opposite of the police—which was given on at least two occasions? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have to justify it. I am the Minister of Police. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the area report that makes it very clear the police decided not to prosecute on the basis of comments made to them by the Labour Party. 
Document not tabled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows the police believed that the Parliamentary Service rules which were abundantly clear to almost all other parties did not exist. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table the opinion of the Solicitor-General dated 8 March 1993 which makes it clear that the commissioner decides whether a person or a crime would be prosecuted—not the Minister of Police. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ingram Report—Review of Immigration Matters 
4.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has he reviewed the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes. A number of immigration matters are covered in the Ingram report which I have read on a number of occasions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If that is the case does he stand by his answer to this House of Tuesday 5 September that “Paragraph 123 of the Ingram report indicates that that email”—that is the second email from the immigration branch manager in Apia Mr James Dalmer about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Thais in Samoa dated 9 May— “was passed to the immigration intelligence unit and to the department’s Pacific division.” given that paragraph 123 makes no mention whatsoever of that email but rather discusses the work done by Mr Siriwan for friends of the Field family in Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I confirm that according to the advice I have received from the department in respect of the Ingram inquiry Mr Dalmer passed to the immigration intelligence unit and to the Pacific division on 9 May—10 May in New Zealand—the content to which the member refers. My notes refer to paragraph 123. I will be happy to check that that accords with the Ingram inquiry report. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Let me ask the Minister again: what did the manager of the immigration intelligence unit do with the information he received from the Apia branch manager James Dalmer on 10 May when Mr Dalmer discussed with the manager of the intelligence unit detailed information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa; and to which specific sections within the operational arms of his department was that information passed by the intelligence unit? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that because the incoming email from Mr Dalmer was copied to a number of places the immigration intelligence unit played its normal role which is to provide background assessment and not to take specific actions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does he stand by his answer of 5 September when he was asked what the immigration intelligence unit had done with the fourth set of confirmed information dated 9 June about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa when he said: “Once again this is very simple: it passed it through to the operational division—in this case the manager of the Pacific division who he said attempted to pass it through to the private secretary in the Minister’s office.”; if that answer was not correct precisely who did the immigration intelligence unit pass that information on to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: On the last sitting day of the House I took a point of order to correct confusion between two titles—that of the manager of the Pacific division and that of the group manager service international. I confirm to the member that it was the group manager service international who attempted to pass that information to the Minister’s office—as per my point of order on the last sitting day. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is important for the record that it show that the Minister on the last sitting day actually corrected an answer he gave on 6 September and made no attempt whatsoever to correct his answer of 5 September. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but that is a debating issue. But if the member has another supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Seeking the leave of the House to correct something is a privilege that members have. It is something that is routinely granted to Ministers on the basis that they may not have all of the information they need put in front of them. But it is surely not acceptable—and does not become just a matter of debate—when a Minister says: “Oh I sought leave to correct the matter on the 6th.” when in fact we know that the matter that he is talking about relates to another day. The Minister should at least be asked to clarify which of those particular days he is talking about. This is a very very complex matter. It is a matter that has had a lot of taxpayer money spent on it and is the subject of a member being stood down from Parliament. I think it behoves the Minister to get it right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Disputing or making some commentary on what a Minister said is in fact a debatable matter. Of course the matter could be clarified through a supplementary question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: As the Ingram report reveals that on four separate occasions that Minister’s immigration intelligence unit received information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Thais in Samoa will that Minister tell this House whom the immigration intelligence unit paid for by the taxpayers passed that information received four different times on to—who in his operational divisions did it pass that information on to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the immigration intelligence unit was aware that the group manager service international was dealing with the matter. 
Maternity Services—Rural Women 
5.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports indicating that maternity services for rural women are at crisis point and urgent action is needed to improve the situation; if so what action if any is he taking as the Minister responsible? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have seen the media statement by Dr Don Simmers over the weekend that the member refers to. The entire section 88 maternity services notice is under review by the Ministry of Health in consultation with the New Zealand Medical Association the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners the New Zealand College of Midwives and others. I can assure the member that the issues facing rural New Zealand are on the agenda as part of that review not least because of Dr Simmers’ comments. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does he consider it satisfactory that for example Queenstown women are faced with travelling for 3 hours to Invercargill or for 4½ hours to Dunedin to give birth because of the absence of local medical expertise? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: What Dr Simmers suggests in Queenstown for example is working well in other parts of Southland—for example Gore which has a level 2 maternity facility that has 80 to 100 births each year. The Southland District Health Board is keen for local practitioners to provide a greater level of service. It has held meetings in Queenstown about this and is happy to work with local practitioners. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has he received on maternity outcomes for women in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Maternity outcomes for women are such that the number of maternal deaths in New Zealand in the 10 years to 2003 which is the period for which I have the latest statistics has fallen from 17 to seven per 100000 live births. This is tremendous progress and is a testament to the work of New Zealand’s world-class maternity workforce. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does he consider that the Canadian and Australia solution of training doctors in rural areas to perform instrument-assisted deliveries caesarean sections and neonatal and maternal emergency care could be used in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Prospectively—and of course a lot of general practitioners in rural areas have some obstetric experience. The point being made by Dr Simmers is that they are getting older and that is the issue that needs to be addressed in the review. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What assurances of improved services can he offer women in provincial centres such as Wanganui Greymouth and Gisborne where specialist cover is described by the New Zealand Medical Association as at best “less than ideal”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are certainly problems in Wanganui at the moment as the member will be aware. The problems in Greymouth were last month; this month it has two obstetricians. The same thing can be said for Masterton which ran into difficulty last year; those situations are also resolved. In other words from time to time someone retires and a gap appears. 
Radiographers’ Strike—Health Services 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What effect is the radiographers’ strike having on elective surgery and emergency departments of public hospitals and how many patients will be affected by this industrial action? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 As a result of thorough planning by district health boards affected the impact of the strike has thus far been mitigated significantly. Regardless the impact on patients will be substantial. It is something I hope both parties will remember when they finally resume talks. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What did the Minister mean when he told the media today that this is not a big strike—involving only 200 or 300 people out of a workforce of 70000—when this strike has brought 14 public hospitals to their knees with thousands of patients being turned away and why does he not measure the strike by the number of patients affected instead of the number of people causing the chaos? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the member had been attending to all of the press conference he refers to he would have seen that I did. 
Maryan Street 
: What protections are in place to ensure that patients needing very urgent attention can be cared for in the event of a strike? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Under reforms introduced by the Labour-led Government both district health boards and unions are required by law to provide life-preserving services in the event of a strike. They have been arranged for the current strike and I can advise the House that to the best of my knowledge these services have so far been called on four times today. I thank all health professionals working in our public hospitals. The next 2½ days will be difficult and the Government appreciates the efforts of all involved. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given that the Minister told the striking radiographers and the district health board that he wishes them “every good luck” to resolve the strike what would he say to the thousands of patients affected by the strike some with cancer and other life-threatening conditions and would he wish them every good luck? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I repeat the remarks I made earlier that under reforms introduced by the Labour-led Government both district health boards and unions are required by law to provide life-preserving services in the event of a strike. So far today to the best of my knowledge there have been four such incidents—I think all of them were in Canterbury—and no doubt others will occur as the week goes by. So far those life-preserving services have been provided without difficulty. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What action besides wishing the strike parties “every good luck” is the Minister taking to get these 14 hospitals working again and does he think that taxpayers are paying him $1000 a day as Minister of Health to sit on his hands and rely on the goddess of chance to fix this crisis? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me introduce the member to a fact that he is clearly unaware of which is that I am neither the employer nor the employee. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When in order to fit the thousands of patients affected by the strike back into the system other patients will be pushed over the 6-month waiting list cut-off does the Government not realise that Minister Hodgson’s inaction will worsen the waiting list cull which is up to 27000 patients already? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member speaks of thousands more than will be the case. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister confirm that yesterday he issued a call for the strike parties to return to the negotiating table—and they did not; and does he not realise that across provincial New Zealand thousands of patients face disruption and suffering from his neglect and faith in the goddess of chance? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware that people who are already sick are having their lives further disrupted by the strike action and I say to both parties that I urge them to take that into account when they next meet. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What would the Minister say to Michael Gordon of Timaru who has had his urgently needed surgery to remove malignant brain tumours delayed because of the strike; would he say “every good luck” to that man? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I would say to that man that if the service he needs is a life-preserving one then under New Zealand law he will get it. 
Overlander Rail Service—Petition 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he been informed that thousands of New Zealanders have signed a petition to overturn the axing of the Overlander rail service; if so is he prepared to offer any support to save the service? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes and not at this point because I am still to see a sensible proposal for a rescue package. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has the Minister travelled on the Overlander recently and experienced the spectacular journey through the volcanic plateau and the 1000-year-old virgin rimu forests and over 14 viaducts and through the tunnels that make up the engineering marvel that is the Raurimu Spiral; if not will he agree to take the journey so that he can see firsthand the huge tourism potential of the service before this Government allows it to be axed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not usually have 12 hours to travel from Auckland to Wellington and the pleasure sounds like too much for my elderly soul to manage. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister aware that the newly launched passenger rail service between Adelaide and Perth is so popular that people have to book 2 or 3 years ahead; is it not folly to axe the North Island’s last long-distance passenger train just as other countries for various reasons—not the least of them being climate change—are investing heavily in passenger rail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think the climate change argument is very impressive. First of all part of the route requires electricity. The marginal generating capacity for that is thermal power which is highly inefficient. Secondly for the rest of the route a very large diesel pulls a very small number of passengers. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that patronage of the Overlander has recently increased somewhat; that being the case will he consider more seriously a modest subsidy for a modest length of time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The passenger usage has increased because the route will be closed and people are taking their last chances. That could lead to what one might call an “Irish solution” of continuing to announce the closure of the route every so often in order to increase the patronage. However I do not think that would work terribly effectively. Sooner or later people would wake up to the con job. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that tourists taking the Overlander such as the six I met yesterday have had the most extraordinary difficulty in discovering that there was such a service and have said that perhaps the aim was to discourage them from using the service rather than to encourage them; if come 30 September New Zealand does lose its last significant long-distance passenger rail service would the Government be willing to fast track another suitable operator into running the service by making a clear statement that ONTRACK would grant that operator fair access to a reliable track at a reasonable cost? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The last part is obviously a matter for ONTRACK and not for the Government. It is not the last long-distance passenger rail service. It may be in the North Island but there is another island to the south where there are two long-distance passenger train services still in operation—not to mention of course the Otago Excursion Train Trust which has operated very happily and very successfully for many years. As I said at the start I am awaiting a sensible proposal. Some discussions will occur later this week; whether the proposals we see are sensible is another matter. What I am not prepared to do is to sign in advance a blank cheque for anything on the grounds that carrying something like 70000 passengers a year—and that is not 70000 every day for a year; that is 70000 over the entire year—warrants a subsidy of nearly $2 million a year. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table four documents. The first is a letter from the Mayor of Ruapehu District supporting the service and pointing out that 13000 passengers disembark in Ruapehu District bringing in $4.3 million to the economy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Mayor of Hamilton City strongly supporting the continuance of the service and expressing the council’s strong disappointment with the New Zealand Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Colin Meads of Te Kuiti heartily endorsing the petition urging the Government to support the Overlander service. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table hundreds of comments that I picked up yesterday which were written by New Zealanders and tourists at the Station Cafe and state for example that the Overlander is one of the great train journeys of the world comparable with journeys through the Swiss Alps and the Canadian Rockies. Another states that it is the most beautiful train ride in the world that this service must not be left to die and that those who promote such a backwards step should hang their heads in shame. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table three letters from mayors. The first is from Bob Harvey Mayor of Waitakere City totally supporting the saving of this historic train service. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Mark Ammon Mayor of Waitomo District also supporting the service. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Mayor of Palmerston North City Heather Tanguay stating how important the service is in bringing tourists. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just wonder whether any of the Greens have letters to table from any mayors offering to spend any money in support of the service. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Pass Rates 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What proportion of school-leavers leave school without achieving level 1 NCEA? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Under the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) students leave school with a record of learning which shows how many credits they have attained. The introduction of NCEA has meant that for the first time in 20 years we are seeing a significant drop in the proportion of students leaving school with no or very low qualifications and an increase in the standards that students are achieving. In 2005 73 percent of school-leavers achieved level 1 NCEA or above. This is a vastly better system than was School Certificate which divided students fifty-fifty between those who passed and those who failed. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Since about 11 o’clock this morning the Minister has known what the question would be because it was printed on the question sheet. The question was quite direct and short and it asked him what proportion of school-leavers leave school without achieving level 1 NCEA. I know that that information is publicly available and easily understood but the Minister did not address the question at all. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I noticed that the member leant across to talk to members so he may have missed the part where I said that in 2005 73 percent of school-leavers achieved level 1 NCEA. I think he can do the calculation between that figure and 100 percent. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the proportion of students leaving school with no qualification was 20.7 percent in 2004 and that in 2005 the proportion of those who left school without level 1 NCEA rose to 27.3 percent? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member continues I think to confuse how NCEA actually works. What students get is a record of learning that tells us how many credits they have achieved. Thirteen percent of students leave school with few or no qualifications that are going to do them any good at all. But the rest of them who do have a record of learning can make use of that record to either progress on to level 2 or 3 or perhaps leave school and start at say the local bakery on some kind of industry-related qualification making use of what they have achieved and as demonstrated in their record of learning. That is how the system works. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What advantages does the NCEA have over the previous pass/fail School Certificate system? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: NCEA sets clear standards recognises excellence and delivers meaningful information to parents and employers. Under NCEA students accumulate credits that build towards formal qualifications over a number of years. A major advantage of NCEA is that those who leave with partial attainment can still use their credits to build towards a qualification. In 2004 nearly 80 percent of students in this cohort did just that putting their credits towards apprenticeships and polytechnic courses. The latest figures show that students are attaining higher levels of achievement under NCEA that far more students are leaving school with a university entrance qualification that more students are staying in school until year 13 and that 67 percent of school-leavers are achieving beyond level 1. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: How does he account for the fact that the social report announced that in 2004 only 47 percent of Maori school-leavers left school with qualifications higher than NCEA level 1 while 74 percent of European and 87 percent of Asian students left school with qualifications higher than NCEA level 1 and have Maori ever been asked how this degree of disparity will be addressed; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer to the last question is that yes Maori have been frequently asked to give ideas as to how this might be addressed. For example the Hui Taumata that will take place in October will bring together to Taupo virtually every educator involved in Maori education to discuss that very issue. I can give the member some encouragement by saying that there have been big improvements amongst Maori and Pacific students. For example in 2002 the first year of NCEA 35 percent of Maori students left school in year 11. That figure is now 23 percent. In other words we are beginning to see in terms of retention and achievement improvements as demonstrated by NCEA. 
Judy Turner 
: What is the Minister doing given that boys constitute only 41 percent of NCEA level 2 and 3 passes to specifically address the educational need for boys and encourage them to stay and be successful at school? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The research shows that the major problem for boys tends to be in the area of creative reading and creative writing. As they do less well in those two areas of work that tends to spread across their other subject areas. So we know that if we focus on literacy—which is what we are doing spreading around $52 million now in that area—we can begin to lift boys’ performance and the evidence so far is that that is exactly what is happening. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Ministry of Education put out a press statement on 1 September stating that the overall picture for school-leavers is positive when the number of students leaving schools with no qualification rose by almost 30 percent between 2004 and 2005? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would have to go back and check those figures because once again I am not sure whether the member is comparing apples with apples. His comparison usually is around some kind of equivalence between NCEA and School Certificate and I want to point to the ways those errors can easily be stated. For example the member in his press release says that 2200 school leavers in Wellington left with “just level 1 NCEA or less”. In fact the number in the Wellington City area was 628 so members can see how easily those numbers can be confused. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the ministry put out a press release with the heading: “More students leave school with higher qualifications” and leave out the rather startling information that more students are now leaving school with no qualifications—and significantly more between 2004 and 2005? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because more students are leaving school with qualifications! Once again I will take an illustration of one of the things the member is doing all the time. He is forgetting that in NCEA students accumulate credits. So for example one of the things the member likes to use is literacy and he uses a snapshot of 2004 or 2005 forgetting of course that students from those years stay in the system and achieve at a higher level of literacy later on. So very few students now are leaving school with literacy issues. The percentage is down to about 12 percent now which is a major improvement. In other words the member needs to use the system rather than try to compare it all the time with a non-existent system—namely School Certificate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister concerned at all that the number of students leaving decile 1 to 3 schools with no qualifications has risen between 2004 and 2005 from 33 percent of all school-leavers to 43 percent; and why does he just carry on as if these numbers mean nothing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am very pleased that we are now seeing in lower-decile schools and particularly amongst students who traditionally did not achieve students who are establishing a record of learning. I can pick two local schools Wainuiomata High School and Porirua College that traditionally were not schools with a high academic record. Both schools now report vastly improved performance. At Porirua College for example students have moved on to achieve scholarships in a way they never did in the past. That is where I come back to the member. He wants all the time to superimpose a norm-referenced system over a standards-based system and try to make an unfair comparison between the two. He needs to agree to the notion that NCEA provides for students who formerly had no record of learning at all—because School Certificate did not provide that. Those students now have it and now can use it as a basis for further learning. 
Defence—Spending 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has he received a report claiming that defence spending was reduced from 1.8 percent to 0.9 percent of GDP; if so is the claim correct? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes I have seen such a report. It is in the pamphlet I am holding which was produced by the Exclusive Brethren to support the National Party and it attributes that cut to the Labour Government. The defence spending cut from 1.8 percent to 0.9 percent of GDP in fact occurred between 1990 and 1997 encompassing the first two terms of the previous National Government. The claim that Labour was responsible for that is just one of the blatant lies promoted by the Exclusive Brethren in support of National at the last election—notwithstanding the biblical injunction not to bear false witness. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other claims were put out in that report? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is a long list of claims and I cannot go through all of them. But again they are demonstrably untrue. They talk about Labour decimating Defence Force numbers; in fact the 6000 cut in Defence Force employees was again under the previous National Government. They talk about the rundown in Orion and Hercules aircraft at the very time when probably around $600 million was being spent on modernising them and giving them life extensions. But the truly extraordinary claim in this pamphlet is that Labour preferred appeasement and pacifist ideals. I describe that claim as extraordinary because it is made by a sect that refuses to take up arms in defence of our country but that expects others to do so on its behalf. The track record is clear: East Timor the Solomon Islands and Afghanistan are just a few of the deployments made under the Labour-led Government and they prove that the claim that Labour pursued appeasement is nothing but another blatant lie. 
Jill Pettis 
: What has been the increase in spending on defence from 1999 to 2006 in dollar terms and what is the trend in Defence Force personnel numbers? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: These figures again contradict the lies put out in the Exclusive Brethren pamphlet. Defence expenditure was $1 billion in 1999; in 2006 it rose to $1.4 billion—an increase of 40 percent. With the $4.6 billion in the Defence Sustainability Initiative in last year’s Budget Defence Force personnel will increase by an estimated 12 to 15 percent with actual numbers in the last year alone having gone up from around 10600 to 11200. 
Child Support—Collection Rate 
10.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Is he satisfied with the collection rate of child support from liable parents; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I would always like to see the collection rate for child support be higher and that is one of the reasons behind the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) which is currently before the House. That bill is designed to get more money directly to children. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister believe that the minimum formula assessment of $730 per year or $14 per week is adequate to provide for the seven eight nine or even 10 children it currently is providing for? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: There will always be issues around the way the formula is developed and applied. The important question is to make sure that the money raised from child support goes to the children. At the moment $651 million of the $1.1 billion taken in child support is penalties which never go to the children. My focus is on having the $450 million that is owed for those children directed to them. 
Judith Collins 
: Why has he not increased the minimum child support payment to a level that “better [reflects] the costs of raising a child” as United Future’s policy promises to do? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The issue of the cost of a child and the cost of raising a child is under consideration. I have recently had discussions with the Australian authorities regarding the new formula that they are adopting and it is something we will look at to see how applicable it is here in terms of a translation. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is he allowing parents with outstanding child support debt to leave New Zealand when that is directly opposed to United Future’s own policy which is “do not allow them”—parents—“to leave the country with debt outstanding”; why is it still happening? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: We have a reciprocal agreement with Australia regarding the collection of child support obligations on both sides of the Tasman. One of the reasons why we have a large outflow at the moment is the high level of penalties. The Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) seeks to remove those penalty restrictions for a number of those people in return for their entering into a repayment regime. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is it acceptable that of the 65319 liable parents assessed to pay only $14 per week towards the upkeep of their children 44339 are not managing to sustain even that $14 per week payment? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: That goes back to the point I referred to in the primary answer. We do need to improve collection rates. Where there are impediments they need to be removed. One of the big impediments for a number of people at the moment is the very high level of penalties. I remind the member that none of the penalty payments go to the children. I would much rather that the focus was on making liable parents pay what they owe and on having that money directed to the children to whom it ought to be directed. 
Apprenticeships and Trades—Women 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women's Affairs 
: What reports if any has she received encouraging women to enter non-traditional apprenticeships and trades? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 Yesterday the human rights commissioner in the shape of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor launched a publication called  
Give Girls a Go 
!. This report tells the stories of young women who through the Modern Apprenticeships programme have been able to enter areas of employment such as joinery and building that were previously considered off limits for women. The publication also contains favourable comments from their employers who have seen real advantages in encouraging women into non-traditional fields. I commend the report to the House. 
Sue Moroney 
: What barriers exist in society for women taking up non-traditional roles? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As the report shows not being aware of opportunities is an enormous barrier to career choices for young women. Unfortunately there are some groups in New Zealand whose beliefs dictate that men make all the decisions and women are treated as second-class citizens unable to participate in any areas of New Zealand life. One of these groups is the Exclusive Brethren whose beliefs limit choices for women which is why their alignment to a major political party represents such a threat to the advancement of women in New Zealand if its policies were ever to be implemented. 
BreastScreen Aotearoa—Confidence 
12.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he have confidence in BreastScreen Aotearoa; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes; because it is working tirelessly to protect the health of New Zealand women. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What action will he take now that his ministry has confirmed that for women from 45 to 49 years of age a participation rate of only 19 percent has been achieved—and for Maori women it is even worse at 11 percent—almost 2 years after the age extension programme was commenced when the accepted target was 70 percent participation of the eligible population? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am surprised the member does not know given her background that the 2-year capacity target since the age extension has been almost entirely met. It is about 98.5 percent met. A further roll-out of this extension will occur in the forthcoming 2 years. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What reports has he received on the success of extending breast screening to 45 to 49-year-olds? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have received reports that 30000 women in this age group have already been screened despite their being recommended as the lowest priority by an expert group on which the National member who asked the primary question once sat. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How does the Minister reconcile the Government culling tens of thousands of New Zealanders off waiting lists on the basis that it is unethical to give patients an unrealistic expectation they would be treated with its promoting to both Maori and non-Maori women of 45 to 49 years of age the false perception that they would be recruited and offered a mammogram so that their breast cancer could be found and treated in a timely way thus giving them the best chance of survival? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me quote the expert advisory group on which the member once sat. It specifically noted that the current high quality of the programme should be maintained and that the extension of the programme should be implemented in such a way that it did not undermine the ongoing development of a world-class programme. We are doing just that. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What action not reports will he take on the fact that 7 years after BreastScreen Aotearoa started only 45 percent of eligible women and only 30 percent of eligible Maori women are being screened and what will he be saying to the New Zealand women who feel let down or does he say to New Zealand women what he says to striking radiographers—every good luck? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member says the programme has been going for 7 years. She forgets to tell the House that the extended programme has been going for 2 years. In that 2 years it has met its targets. Yes we have achieved only 20 percent coverage in the 40 to 45 years age group but then Australia did not manage to get to 30 percent over 10 years. So I think this programme is working well. The money is going in; there is no shortage of money. Certainly a number of new facilities have been opened this year. Next month we have I think another two or three new mobile services coming in taking us up to about 10 or 11. This programme is extending as scheduled. 
Questions to Members 
Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline)  Amendment Bill—Review 
1.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 
: Will she consider proposing amendments to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill to include a defence for parents acting to restrain their children; if so what form will this amendment take? 
SUE BRADFORD (Member in charge of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill): 
 Yes I am considering supporting an amendment to my bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. One of the amendments that I am looking at supporting is to amend the bill so that the bill makes it clear that parents would not be breaking the law if for example they were to restrain their child where the child was about to attack people or property where the child was in danger or where the parent was putting the child into a room for time out. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the member considering any other amendments to the bill; if so what might they be? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Yes I am considering at least one other amendment if not more amendments to the bill. But that is part of the normal select committee process and I look forward to working with other members of the Justice and Electoral Committee on amendments. I also welcome the opportunity to speak with the member about this matter in more detail should he so desire. 
Chester Borrows 
: Supplementary— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Normally with questions to members there is one supplementary question. I will take Mr Borrows’ question but no more questions after that. 
Chester Borrows 
: Will the member agree that most groups both for and against the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act want the same three things: to send the message that child abuse is wrong to stop those who seriously assault their children from hiding behind section 59 of that Act and to prevent good parents who lightly smack their children from being liable to prosecution; will she support such an amendment to her bill because it is not only desirable but also necessary to achieve those objectives? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I think that most if not all submitters on the bill and most MPs would support the first two propositions. The third is more debatable. As to the question of amendments those will be considered in detail in the select committee of which the member is a member. So he can be part of working on those amendments with us. 
Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 7 September. 
Preamble ( 
continued 
)  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I again take this opportunity to take a call surrounding the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. The scope of the bill is indeed quite large in terms of iwi and hapu and their geographical interests ranging from the settlement of Maketu reaching around the bluff to Newdick’s Beach following through to Otamarakau and down through to Te Kaha as far south as Tongariro. It also takes on board the lakes in Rotorua and obviously this settlement is designed to hand the ownership of the lakes back to Te Arawa. I think it is important to acknowledge that area and the hapu that work within that area. 
When we talked about the agreement that was struck back in 1922 between the Crown and Te Arawa we also recall that during that time Te Arawa generously postponed claims to the lake beds during World War I and gifted a percentage of the payment to assist the Crown during the Depression. They repeated that gesture in support of our country during World War II. The Crown acknowledges the spiritual cultural economic and traditional importance of the lakes and their resources to Te Arawa. The Crown also acknowledges for example that it failed to legislate for a significant number of fishing licences for Te Arawa in 1908 when it promoted legislation to acknowledge the problem of hardship. The introduction of exotic fish species also significantly depleted the indigenous species that Te Arawa depended on for food hospitality trade and koha. 
The preamble to the bill acknowledges Te Arawa’s historical and cultural affinity with the lakes. The transfer of the lake beds has guaranteed free public access for recreational activities such as swimming boating fishing etc. along with the preservation of the existing rights of commercial users and the owners of boatsheds and jetties. Although the 1922 agreement is not challenged by this settlement this legislation will settle all of Te Arawa’s historical claims related to the lakes at any time between 1840 and 1922 including any claims related to the 1922 agreement. 
Negotiations between the trust board and the Crown began in 1999. Throughout the settlement negotiations both parties recognised that their mandate extended only to lakes-related matters and that any settlement reached would not settle Te Arawa’s historical grievances in matters unrelated to the lakes claim. I acknowledge the hard work and effort made by all those in Te Arawa who faced many obstacles and challenges but preserved their patience and dignity. Without their hard work it would have been much more difficult to reach such a significant point as we have reached with the bill that is here today. 
Let us be very clear that the bill settles only claims made under the Treaty in regard to the lakes until 1992 and any issues that Te Arawa may have either now or in the future concerning the annuity provided to the trust board under the 1922 agreement. In doing so this legislation clarifies that the Crown settlement offer does not settle any claims under the Treaty that do not concern the lakes or the annuity. Te Arawa maintain the opportunity to negotiate with the Crown for the settlement of their historical grievances under the Treaty in relation to land and any other matters unrelated to the lakes and the annuity. 
The bill also involves the apology which is equally as important as the financial redress as it moves forward by recognising the mana of Te Arawa in respect of the lakes. More important the bill commences the vital option of rebuilding the relationship between both parties. The apology is important to the Crown because it acknowledges the breaches of the Treaty in respect of the lakes and extends an open hand by way of an apology for those breaches to Te Arawa. 
An annuity redress is recognition of the fact that the Crown’s actions in respect of the lakes breached the Treaty. The annuity redress is additional to capitalising the annuity and settles any remaining issues post - 21 September 1992. 
The cultural redress provided by the Crown in the bill is arguably the most significant aspect of the settlement. The cultural redress is provided to meet the cultural interests of Te Arawa in respect of the lakes and it recognises their mana over the lakes. Significantly the cultural redress recognises their close association with the lakes and provides measures to ensure their ownership of the lake beds and their continued involvement in the future management of the lakes. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 We are talking about a Treaty claim. Although National would normally be in favour of a Treaty claim I want to raise a number of issues with the Committee this afternoon. 
The issue of major concern to my colleagues and me is that of mandate. The Te Arawa Maori Trust Board said that 93 percent of Te Arawa had said that they agreed with the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. That remark has put a few people crook because there is strong evidence that that is not actually so. One would think that when the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board said 93 percent of Te Arawa agreed with the bill they would point out that only 9000 people are registered with that board. Out of those 9000 people only 4000 took part in the process. That is only about 10 percent because the going korero—the going story—is that between 40000 and 60000 people whakapapa to Te Arawa in the last census. Putting about the story that 93 percent of those from Te Arawa have agreed with the bill does not seem to me to be very good. 
There are issues about ownership. We heard from Ngati Whaoa that they were given ownership of Lake Ngapouri. However this bill in settling a Treaty claim gives the ownership of Lake Ngapouri to the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. Again I have some major difficulty with that and we will explore it as we go through the process. 
The removal of the jurisdiction of the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal must be looked at. Not in any other bill—Treaty settlement or otherwise—has this happened. There were questions about the model. Submitters have said that the model was based on a Government template from the Office of Treaty Settlements rather than on a specific indigenous model from Te Arawa. Instead the Office of Treaty Settlements said: “Here’s a template. We’ll give this to Te Arawa and they can sign it off. Then we’ll shoot up the road and give it to Tainui and they can settle their river claim based basically on what the Office of Treaty Settlements has come up with.” It is absolutely ridiculous. 
The annuity question is of major concern to me. In 1922 £6000 was set aside. No one has really been able to answer the question about what that money was for. Was it an out-of-court settlement or was it because Te Arawa gave ownership of the lakes over to the Crown and the Crown gave back £6000 as an annuity every year? When I asked a number of questions about this—what the Treaty breach was; what we were trying to fix up here—I was told that lo and behold the Treaty breach was because inflation had not been taken into account and there had been no rent review or no review of the annuity on a yearly basis. I never read that in the Treaty. I did not know that it was a breach of the Treaty if one did not do that for goodness’ sake! It does not talk about annuities in articles 1 2 or 3 and it does not talk about inflation or anything of the kind. 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s the principles. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right—it is a principle. New Zealand First is absolutely the guns on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi! 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I want to join the debate at this point partly to encourage all members to ensure that they have actually read the preamble to the bill. It is a useful starting point for understanding why we are here. Some members have read it thoroughly and others perhaps have not had the opportunity to do so yet. As my colleague Dave Hereora illustrated the preamble lays out a historical account of this settlement and it has formed an important part of the basis of the agreement between Te Arawa and the Crown. 
 I want to pick up on a couple of points that Mr Henare raised and I think they were raised last week when the discussion on the preamble was commenced by Mr Brownlee. Indeed on the question of mandate firstly the matters came up during the second reading and for that matter came before the select committee. There has been considerable discussion around this question of the legitimacy of the mandate. 
It has to be noted perhaps first and foremost that the iwi and hapu that opposed the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board’s mandate in their submissions to the Maori Affairs Committee—and my colleague Mr Flavell referred to them in his second reading speech—generally appear themselves not to have any formal mandate on which they were acting in making their presentation before the committee. It is an interesting dilemma for members to consider whereby a properly mandated body was being challenged before the committee in its proven mandate by a small group that had no mandate on which to act. I urge members to consider where the justice of claim to proper representation therefore sits in that regard. 
I stress that the mandate the trust board has developed has been properly accepted. The process was extensive and is a well-trodden path in other previous settlements. It includes: multiple hui a-iwi—seven I understand in this case; proper submission of the deed of mandate to the Crown; a public consultation on that deed; proper consideration by a range of officials; and ultimately formal acceptance of the mandate. It is important that members who were not part of the select committee are aware that the Waitangi Tribunal relatively recently considered the question of the trust board’s mandate in relation to application for an urgent inquiry by some of the members who also appeared before the select committee. I tell members that the tribunal upheld that the mandate was collectively determined appropriate to deal with the complex overlapping customary interests in the lakes and has been well-maintained. I emphasise that the mandate has been well-maintained throughout the extended period of negotiation. I have no doubt the mandate recognised by my predecessor the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham was appropriate for the negotiation of the settlement of all of Te Arawa’s claims to the lakes and that it remains as strong today. 
On the question of ratification Mr Henare quite rightly visited that. It is an important question in any settlement and is one that often comes up at this point in the process of considering legislation. Firstly perhaps it is a little misleading to look at the bald census figures and Mr Henare referred to some. I think the generally held view is around 40000—that is the figure that is often said to refer to those who whakapapa to Te Arawa; some say a little more and so on. But we should bear in mind a number of things: firstly that figure is all of the people including those under 18—of which there are a considerable number—who are below voting age. If we take off those we are left with around 23000 people of voting age in Te Arawa. So it is about 58 percent of that total. 
Secondly with regard to those who choose to register to participate in the process well that is a choice. So it is important that we are confident and I think we can be. I think Sir Douglas Graham went through a very clear process to ensure his confidence and I remain satisfied of it. There has been a full opportunity for all those who are eligible to participate should they choose to. Of the 51 percent who did register to participate 94 percent approved the settlement. That is a very high level of approval by any measure. 
I reassure members because it is a legitimate issue to raise that the ratification rate for Te Arawa lakes is comparable with ratification rates in previous settlements. For example the Nga Tahu settlement results were almost identical to Te Arawa with a participation rate of around 50 percent and an approval rate of 94 percent as opposed to Te Arawa’s at 51 and 94 percent. Back in 1995 the Waikato Tainui settlement voter turn-out rate—in other words the participation rate—was only 40 percent with 65 percent approval. Yet as we have seen these two other examples have endured. I want to give that reassurance to members. 
Finally Mr Henare also raised the matter of the removal of jurisdiction of courts and the Waitangi Tribunal in this legislation. I reassure him and other members that that is normal and typical of what occurs in settlement legislation because it is a necessary part of ensuring that the end result is full and final. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. Kia ora tatou tatou e hui nei i tenei po. I did take the Minister’s advice and I read the whole lot of the preamble very well. I read it a couple of times and tried to pick out a couple of points to refer the Committee to. 
Firstly I say there was probably a hope over a hundred years ago that the matter of the ownership of the Te Arawa lakes was fully and finally resolved. But then if we look at the track record we see a little differently. So let us just look back at some of the detail. On taking the Minister’s advice I found the preamble told me that in 1909 Te Arawa went to the courts to seek clarification of the ownership of the lakes. The Crown disputed the ownership issue. In 1912 the Supreme Court upheld Te Arawa’s right to have claims to the ownership of the lakes investigated in the Native Land Court. The Crown according to the document used stalling tactics—like not providing survey plans to the court—and that meant the application was not heard until 1918. In 1920 the Crown approached Te Arawa to negotiate a settlement of the claims to ownership of the lakes. 
In 1922 Te Arawa and the Crown reached an out-of-court agreement on the ownership issue. That agreement had a provision for an annuity of £6000 a year and no provision in the agreement for the annuity to be reviewed. Over time the value of the annuity paid to the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board diminished to a point where it did not make any significant contribution to the affairs of the board. Of course Mr Henare raised the issue in respect of inflation. Before and after the 1922 agreement the Crown and local government assumed responsibility for regulating activities including discharges that impacted on the lakes. Those included the milling of native timber farming and the discharge of human effluent. The result of all of that is that Te Arawa are getting back a contaminated site. I should be happy; unfortunately I am not. 
That is a brief history in terms of what is in the preamble so it is not surprising that of the 20 submissions on the bill to the Maori Affairs Committee 18 were against it. I attended a number of the meetings held where people expressed concerns about the offer and the conditions of settlement. But as one of the lawyers put it—and in response to the Minister’s korero—to the people if Te Arawa did not take the deal they could not expect to have the issue considered again for many many years. He said they should look at what had happened to Te Whakatohea and that if they did not play the game they would go to the back of the queue. So let us just look at that. I think the Minister and Mr Henare have covered the issues about the participation rate and so on. I tend to agree with Mr Henare about participation but I hear what the Minister is saying. The bottom line is that the deal put to our people was to take it or dip out. Of course our people were going to vote for the deal in that sort of scenario. 
So what is the deal? There is cultural redress with the transfer of the lakes to the new Te Arawa body and also $2.7 million for financial redress and $7.3 million in annuity redress which is around the capitalisation of the annuity payments provided for in the 1922 agreement and the settlement of any annuity issues. The deal also includes an acknowledgment of breaches of the Treaty and an apology. 
Let us put the deal into a context. It is acknowledged by most commentators that settlements are always going to be around 1 percent of the true value of claims. It is acknowledged that all of these settlements are set against the Tainui and the Ngai Tahu settlements where the ratchet clause means that both of those tribal nations will get more money if the total set aside for Treaty settlements exceeds $1 billion. What is the magic about $1 billion? It is something called the “fiscal envelope” which was rejected by Maoridom following hui up and down the country some 10 years ago. Is the fiscal envelope still alive? Hell yes—$1.3 billion to be exact. That is the total set aside to be available for settlements between 1994 and 1996 from memory to 2010. 
To put that figure further in context I will say $771 million is set aside in 2006 for NH90 helicopters $200 million was set aside in 2003 for Tranz Rail there was the Air New Zealand bail-out of $885 million in 2001 $620 million was set aside in 1990 for the Bank of New Zealand bail-out and so on. We can add to that the notion around tourism—the fact that tourism is a major part of the Te Arawa make-up—an industry of over $200 million each year. So there are some huge inequities here and those need to be considered throughout the length and breadth of our discussion. 
The select committee identified some key issues that the Minister alluded to—for example whether the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board had the mandate to negotiate on behalf of tribes. My answer would be that where tribes gave a mandate yes it did. But there are questions regarding those tribes that are not affiliated to the trust board—we heard about those in the select committee—or those where no hui were held such as Ngati Whaoa. The Crown’s agenda has always been to get a settlement so that the claimants do not come back. Did trust board members consult regularly with the tribes they represented? That is absolutely an internal issue but it remains very questionable. Did the trust board consult in any ongoing way about the progress of all of the confederation? One would have thought that should be the case for the non-affiliated tribes. The answer from my perspective is that it did not consult them. 
In respect of the Government’s models—as proposed in the preamble to the bill—the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board had a series of hui it had a wananga and it decided on one model. It produced a document—it was called a “discussion document”—that had one model for consideration. The “discussion” was not actually about a choice of models but the acceptance of the model because without a model there is no settlement. As reported in the select committee the debate did not really take place. Had it taken place in respect of governance models the likelihood would have been that possibly there would be more buy-in. 
The explanatory note of the bill states that negotiations were “… conducted in good faith and in a spirit of co-operation and compromise:”. Unfortunately I reject that in terms of what I saw and experienced throughout the whole process. The second point is that “it is difficult to assess the loss and prejudice suffered by Te Arawa”. I also reject that; that is able to be done. The third point states: “it is not possible to compensate Te Arawa fully for that loss”. I think that is accepted in light of the thinking of the benefit of the whole nation but one would have felt that we were a little closer to the mark if we had put up the amount set aside—as for all settlements. The fourth point states: “in forgoing full compensation”—and here is the catch—“Te Arawa intends to contribute to the development of New Zealand:”. I ask about Te Arawa’s contribution to the nation. As outlined in the document they have given more than enough in terms of going overseas and contributing by way of the tourism package for New Zealand. Surely we can match up there. 
The final point states: “taking all matters into consideration the settlement is fair in the circumstances.” That is an unfortunate statement at the end because one would have thought that taking all things into consideration first of all the amount could be considered in the light of the bigger picture and secondly from my perspective the process used to get us to that point needs serious consideration. The hope will be that we will contribute to addressing issues around Treaty settlements for the ones that come before the House in the future. 
Finally throughout this debate in the Committee stage there will be a number of issues raised that I have set out on my Supplementary Order Paper 57 and I am sure they will contribute to robust debate. Kia ora tatou. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I have taken the advice of the Minister the Hon Mark Burton well before this debate on the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and have read the preamble very carefully. The first point I want to make relates to clauses 13 to 19. It seems to me that this negotiation illustrates just how this Government has gone so slowly—not only on this particular negotiation but on other ones. As Mr Flavell said the preamble makes very bad reading. In 1989 when the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board entered into preliminary negotiations about direct negotiations with the Crown and then right throughout the late 1990s up until 2006 negotiations were conducted at a very dilatory pace. 
That was the first point I was going to make but my friend Mr Flavell who is one of the MPs in this place one should always listen to very closely because he is a very sensible member has raised another matter that gives me cause for great concern and that is the abuse of the process and the style of negotiations by the Government; it is essentially saying to Te Arawa: “Take it or leave it.” That seems to me to be nothing more than duress and I promise members that if that is in fact the style of negotiation that was employed by the Government and its lawyers in this case this will not be an end to discord between Te Arawa and the Crown. I have rich experience of negotiations between Maori and the Crown over the years and unless loose ends are tied up unless negotiations are honourable unless negotiators go the extra mile to ensure that there is a final settlement things will come undone. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I heard Mr Paraone of New Zealand First interjecting and I simply say to him that I cannot get over the fact that New Zealand First supports this bill—but the only thing that is consistent about New Zealand First is its inconsistency. That member is supporting the bill but his bench mate Mr Woolerton is in fact promoting the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. The bloodcurdling explanation in the explanatory note of Mr Woolerton’s bill obviously has no impact on his bench mate because Mr Woolerton is seeking to have deleted from all settlement legislation of this kind the very clauses that that honourable member is seeking to have retained. That is utterly confusing and utterly inconsistent. 
In dealing with the preamble and looking at the negotiation the third point I want to make is on the question of mandate. Several members on the Opposition side of the House have raised mandate questions and in my opinion the report of the select committee is deficient. I acknowledge that when one is dealing with settlement legislation the scope for debate is very narrow and I refer members to the commencement of the select committee report—the English version commences at page 17. It states that we have very great constraints on us when we are looking at Treaty settlement legislation but nonetheless one of the issues we can look at is the issue of mandate and some very serious questions of mandate arise on this particular settlement. 
A number of submitters have questioned the mandate of the trust board and I hear what the Minister has said that there was at least one application to the Waitangi Tribunal which dismissed the urgent application. But I wonder whether the committee which has a very real responsibility to look at these issues has in fact analysed the evidence. Page 20 of the select committee report states: “The trust board does not believe that any changes to the settlement are warranted on the basis of the concerns of Ngati Whaoa.” The trust board says that it did not really think too much of Ngati Rangitihi’s point and that Ngati Rangitihi’s submissions were not really worth the paper they were written on. The Office of Treaty Settlements was satisfied that the trust board had made a commitment to involve all the iwi and hapu in negotiations and Te Puni Kokiri noted that the hui-a-iwi were well advertised. But nowhere in the report other than reciting the actual submissions on the part of various people can one show that the committee itself was truly satisfied that the mandate process was secure. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. I want to make a contribution to this part of the debate on behalf of New Zealand First. We in New Zealand First certainly had an issue about mandate but as part of the select committee process we have to accept that the members of Te Arawa particularly those who do not support this settlement had the opportunity to participate in this process. If people choose not to participate we cannot continually use the argument that the figures in terms of those who participate are not great enough to consider this settlement being advanced. Although we are disappointed at the figures and they could be higher at the end of the day we have to accept that those who have chosen to vote have made their intentions clear. 
Secondly in terms of recognition of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board of course there will always be a dissenting voice. We have noted that in whatever settlements come before the House there has been dissension amongst iwi members. As those of us who have been involved in serving our people outside of this House well know 90 percent of the people whom we set out to serve are the ones who are our biggest critics. This bill is no exception. 
It has been commented that no complaint about the process of negotiation has been expressed by the mandated body. That has been clearly stated particularly before the Maori Affairs Committee. Someone has to make the decisions. In this case the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board is the mandated group that has made the decision to accept this settlement. I take on board some of the comments made by the previous speaker Christopher Finlayson in terms of how the negotiation processes may have taken place. As I hear more and more about the settlements particularly those that come before this House one has to be concerned about how that process is being conducted. However at the end of the day the mandated group accepted the final negotiation. 
I was very surprised that members of the mandated body have accepted the removal of jurisdiction. Although the Minister has given a good explanation as to why that clause is included I should say that a lot of responsibility rests on the advisers of the trust board to advise their client to accept that clause. I noticed that the advisers were rather young compared with a whole lot of other settlement groups and they will have to carry that responsibility on their shoulders should things go awry. 
As the member from the Maori Party commented people are happy about getting the site back but they are not so happy about the contamination and that issue will be addressed as we go through the bill. In response to the comment about references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being included in this bill I will certainly make comment on that on behalf of my party when we come to that part of the bill. Kia ora. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I understand the korero from e toku nei tuakana i tu ake nei i mua i ahau. [ 
my older brother who stood up just before me. 
] 
I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton that I want to concern myself with recitals 13 14 15 16 and 17 in the preamble. In particular I want to ask about this statement in the preamble: “(15) In December 1998 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Arawa Maori Trust Board to represent Te Arawa in negotiations for a settlement with the Crown. Terms of negotiation specifying the scope objectives and general procedures for negotiations were signed by the negotiators appointed to represent the Board in March 1999:” I am wondering whether the Minister can tell the Committee what the initial offer was as opposed to the offer accepted some years later down the track. Why does the preamble further state in recital 18: “The Crown and the Arawa Maori Trust Board initialled a draft deed of settlement on 15 October 2004. …” which is some 6 years after the 1998 mandate that was recognised by the Crown? 
I do not want to harp on too much about it but this annuity business is still bugging me. How does it come to a figure that just so happens to be $7.3 million when the figure for cultural redress is $2.3 million which makes a nice tidy sum of $10 million? Interestingly the figure is not $10.793.26 million it is just $10 million which leads me to believe—and I am not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination—that the fiscal envelope is still hanging around. It is just that these days it is called the multi-year appropriations or maybe something else. So I ask the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Mark Burton what the story behind the annuity is. How was that established? How was the annuity calculated? Was a formula used to calculate the capitalisation of the annuity from £6000 back in 1920-odd to $7.3 million now and how far out did that annuity go? If we were not having this discussion now what would have been the annuity in the year 2020 starting from that period? What would it have been if it had been capitalised out from then and backwards as well?  
I know that one can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink and that there will always be the difficulty even in general elections that not only do people have the right to vote but also they have the right not to turn up on the day and vote and I take the point made by Pita Paraone. There are some problems with this settlement. It is not as clean or as smooth as a number of other settlements have been. I am very very worried that 10 years or 15 years from now our offspring will be arguing about the same issue. If that is the case—and no one can see into the future—it will be a sad day in regard to what I consider to have been a bit of a rush job in terms of the template that has been used. I know full well that this same template is being used to knock Tainui into line in terms of its river claim. I would be very very surprised to see any Tainui settlement being different from the one in front of us. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Sharples Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Sharples Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Preamble agreed to. 
Part 1 Purpose of Act acknowledgements and apology interpretation provisions settlement of claims and miscellaneous matters 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Part 1 of the bill sets out the purpose and the background to the settlement. It includes acknowledgments of the apology given by the Crown to Te Arawa it records the intention of Parliament that the provisions of the bill are to be interpreted in a manner that best furthers the agreements expressed in the deed of settlement and it defines various terms. It also provides for the settlement of the Te Arawa lakes historical claims and the Te Arawa lakes remaining annuity issues and a range of other miscellaneous matters such as perpetuities. 
I will take this opportunity also to refer briefly to Supplementary Order Paper 56 in my name which deals with a number of minor technical matters. Some of these sit in Part 1 so I will take this opportunity to explain them all once then be done with it. 
The Protected Objects Amendment Act was passed by this House on Wednesday 2 August this year. That Act amends the Antiquities Act 1975. Amendments to clauses 2 11 and 57 of this bill and a new clause 101 are required as a consequence of changes in terminology enacted by the Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006. Those changes will take effect on 1 November this year and that is the reason this Supplementary Order Paper is necessary. The Protected Objects Amendment Act amends certain terms in the Antiquities Act. The old terms are used in all settlement deeds and legislation that include an antiquities protocol. The Protected Objects Amendment Act amends existing settlement legislation to reflect those changes which is fine in dealing with legislation that has already been enacted but does not however provide for changes to settlement bills such as the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill that are currently before the House. It is expected that the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill will be passed before 1 November; therefore it needs to contain both the pre - 1 November references to antiquities and the post - 1 November references to protected objects. That is the purpose of my Supplementary Order Paper. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. I did not sit on the submissions process in the Maori Affairs Committee and I have had limited input into this bill. I certainly have limited knowledge of it in all fairness; it is just what I have read and what I have heard in the House over the last few days. I suppose what I would ask—and what I have been asking my colleagues—is whether Te Arawa want this legislation. No one could really answer me on that. In fact I started to get different answers from all directions and that is what concerns me the most. So I thought I would do what any good politician should do: I would go directly to the source. 
I grew up in Taupo so I know former students and other people who are of Te Arawa and I thought I would talk to them directly. I was very good friends with Aroha and she is now living back in that area so I rang her. As a bit of an aside when we were at school we were called “marshmallows” by our Maori teacher not because of our shape—as some people may think—but more because we were considered to be brown on the outside and white on the inside. That was the way she put it. A lot of that was about being disengaged from the process and feeling disengaged from our own iwi and our participation in it. As I talked to Aroha on Friday it struck me that we talk about the mandate and about the opportunity to vote but the reality is that many Maori feel disengaged from the process and from their own iwi let alone from the Pakeha process the Crown and everything else. We have to take all of those things into consideration when we look at whether there is a mandate for something like this legislation to go through. 
I am reluctant to go back to numbers because I think this issue is much more about people. When we start to spout off numbers like 40000 and 4000—that sort of stuff—we forget that we are talking about people. The fact that such a small margin of people feel engaged by the process has to raise some concerns such as whether Te Arawa actually want this settlement. Someone is just telling me that marshmallows are pink on the outside until they are toasted. I think my teacher did mean “MallowPuffs” so there we go. But it is the same point. We all have our MallowPuff stories that we bring from school and still carry with us today. 
Anne Tolley 
: Scarred! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: We are scarred by the feeling of being disengaged from the process. That is the question that I raise with the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton. It is one that brings us huge concern. 
We can talk about the purpose of the bill and about the apology and everything else but the question is whether this settlement will be full and final. If we do not have a sense of buy-in and of the settlement being what the people want and need then will there really be an end to the grievance or is this merely the start of a process? It feels to me as though this bill is still very much a part of the process and that we have a long long way to go. For that reason I certainly support my party in opposing this bill. 
The bill talks about the whole historical grievance of the period and it makes sense in the way it is constructed but I do not know whether that would be everybody’s story. That is when the situation becomes one where people are coming from different places on the issues and are not taking into consideration anyone. What could result from that actually is more of an uproar from people opposed to the legislation than of support from people who are standing up for it. 
No one is keener than the National Party to see these settlements go through. The acknowledgment of wrongdoing and the settlement of claims are things that National started in the early 1990s so they are obviously things we feel very passionately about. But when we look at the engagement of people like Douglas Graham we can see how they got buy-in by taking the time in negotiations. When they talk about the process they went through they say they did not go a few times to talk; they kept going back and going over the same ground many times. They found that other people became more engaged as that process went along. I wonder how we can come up with legislation like this which perhaps does not really address the concerns of the majority of people and how we can lay something like this issue to rest. 
In the first reading debate I said there was a lot more work to be done before we got the bill to this place and I thought we should be going back to the drawing board before we took it through the select committee process. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena no tatou katoa. In reference to Part 1 I point the Minister Mark Burton and other members in the Chamber tonight to a couple of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 57 which I have put forward. I will try to explain them hopefully fairly clearly. 
The first point is to raise again that the notion of “full and final” is something that I suspect our people do not accept. Maybe it was thought in 1922 that that settlement would be full and final yet here we are revisiting it. I note the point made by Mr Finlayson that unless settlements are done in a fair and equitable way and people know what is going on there will be a time when these sorts of settlements come back in the door. So I just put that out there as a prediction—that at one point or another that will happen. 
The second point I raise concerns my amendments to clause 5. I hope the Minister will consider some of these things. Firstly there is to be group called the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group which is to be made up of Te Arawa the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty. Under the bill the involvement of Te Arawa in this group is limited to only two members. I do not know whether the Minister picked that up. Te Arawa is mentioned as having two members but for the members from Environment Bay of Plenty and the Rotorua District Council no numbers are mentioned. It may be that their numbers are limited. I hope to address that further on in the discussions. 
It is important to have all of the parties at the table. The district council must accept some of the responsibility for the state of the lakes as should Environment Bay of Plenty as the current agency operating on behalf of the Crown. But surely it is appropriate that the number of representatives from Te Arawa as the owner equals the combined total of the representatives of both other agencies. How else can the owner ensure leverage to address the issues of cleaning up the lake? I am suggesting in my Supplementary Order Paper that the number of those representatives on that body equal the number of representatives of Te Arawa and that that be stated. To put it another way those responsible for the state of the lake could continue to fail unless this matter is addressed. 
The other issue I mention is that there is actually nothing in the bill that sets out the responsibilities of the Crown. Let us make it clear: the Crown had the responsibility the Crown stuffed up the Crown acknowledges that it stuffed up and the Crown is handing back a polluted site. These are the sorts of things that stick in the heart and soul of my people. 
To that end I will recommend the insertion of a new clause—and hopefully the Minister will consider this—stating that the total number appointed to the group by the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty must not exceed the number appointed by the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. That is part of a recommendation that will be put up later. 
I just also point out to the Minister that the hapu and iwi are set out in schedule 2 and clauses 5 6 and 7 talk about a review of the iwi and hapu. In terms of the management entity there is actually some doubling up of hapu. So a review would be a very important move. 
The apology in the bill acknowledges the part that Te Arawa has played in terms of Aotearoa. It states: “Te Arawa has honoured its obligations and responsibilities under te Tiriti o Waitangi …”. We have contributed to the war effort overseas and we gifted portions of the annuity for the national good in the 1930s and 1940s. It also states: “Te Arawa has demonstrated a record of co-operation with the Crown …” but the benefits back from the Crown were not realised. Finally it acknowledges that Te Arawa have made a significant contribution to tourism and to the wealth of New Zealand—Rotorua in particular. 
Also the Crown acknowledges its actions—this is quite important. The contribution of the Crown includes the introduction of exotic fish; prosecution of Te Arawa people for fishing without licences; deliberate delays in providing survey plans and public maps to Te Arawa for Native Land Court hearings; and the failure to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa as a part of the 1922 agreement. The Crown acknowledges that the pollution and degradation of several of the lakes have caused a sense of grievance. It acknowledges its failure to deal with grievances in any appropriate way despite petitions to the Government tribunal hearings and the like. These issues are actually documented in the bill. The bill sets out for the whole nation to see what the Crown acknowledges. So what is up with that? Te Arawa contributes to the nation and what do they get back? Exotic fish prosecution and deliberate delays.  
 In relation to clause 13 although the Maori Affairs Committee considered submissions from a number of iwi Ngati Whaoa in particular were clear that they wanted three lakes to be withdrawn: Ngahewa Ngapouri—also known as Opouri—and Tutaeinanga. Why? Because determination of the ownership of these lakes and the surrounding areas is still in debate before the Waitangi Tribunal. Yes a report was written by Judge Fox regarding a hearing for urgency and the Melvin report was produced but I ask whether it would not have been better for us to wait for the process of law to run its full course before implementing this bill. Let iwi have the ability to take issues to court—the Waitangi Tribunal in this case—allow the process of law to go to its nth degree then make decisions from that. Including these lakes now may well result in further grievance down the line. 
It is against this background that my Supplementary Order Paper takes these lakes out of the agreement. It omits clause 15 which refers to the settlement of the lakes claim being final. It will never be final for generation after generation especially as as we note our people revisit injustice. 
Clause 16 talks about the jurisdiction of the tribunal to consider claims. This question was put by the select committee to the officials. It seems that the motivation is so that Te Arawa cannot relitigate issues around claims and settlements. So where are the safety mechanisms to ensure that the bill is enacted to its full capacity and where do Te Arawa go to seek redress? These are some of the questions that need to be asked and answered. This is important bearing in mind that the Crown with the bill acknowledges that it stonewalled Te Arawa’s attempts to get justice. Since 1922 it has taken 80 to 90 years to get a settlement. In one sense our people do not trust the Crown. 
These are important amendments that I hope the Minister will consider as we go through the Supplementary Order Paper process. I have taken the amendments fairly seriously in putting them in front of the Committee—in particular in front of the Minister—to address some of the anomalies that are part of this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to comment on the Supplementary Order Papers on this part. The Greens will support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. We do not see any problems with it; it makes perfectly good sense to include the reference and issues around the Protected Objects Amendment Act. In terms of the Supplementary Order Paper from the Maori Party we agree entirely with three of the amendments and will be supporting them wholeheartedly and one we will not support. I will just explain what we are doing. 
The one we will not support at this stage unless something changes quite soon is the omission of the Crown stratum from the legislation. The reason is that I am still very uncertain that by enabling Te Arawa to have ownership of the water body that does not then provide some kind of legal responsibility over the quality of the water or what happens to it. Unless I feel very certain that no further legal issues might arise from that ownership I think it is better to leave that out at this stage. I know that it is controversial and I understand entirely the desire to return the water body to Te Arawa but I am just concerned that I do not have enough information about the legal consequences of doing that. 
So the Green Party will not support that Maori Party amendment. But we completely support the other amendments particularly the change to clause 13. At the Maori Affairs Committee I asked officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements why they were including Lake Opouri in the settlement and why they were giving it to the main group instead of to those who had provided to us in the select committee a vast array of information about the lake’s legal ownership and the trail of it. Those people gave us incredible information and the officials said that the Office of Treaty Settlements owned the lake now that it was negotiating with the main group and that it was going to give the lake to them. That was it! There was no recognition at all of the history of the struggle of this family and its hapu to have that lake returned to them even though they had a significant and detailed paper trail showing their legal ownership over time. 
I thought the approach from the Office of Treaty Settlements was disgusting. It simply was not interested in pursuing the matter and making sure there were ways of dealing with the ownership issues around specific lakes for specific hapu. There were other ways of doing it. Hapu groupings could have been set up. If there were a number of hapu who had connections with the lake a mechanism could have been provided for them to have more control over what happened to it. That would have recognised everybody’s rangatiratanga and made the whole process so much easier. Also it would have meant that those who were directly or more closely associated with a particular lake could have had that mana recognised. But there was no system for doing that and it was obvious that the Office of Treaty Settlements had not bothered to explore ways of doing that. 
It has meant that this particularly hapu who have a paper trail showing their ownership and their struggle to get that ownership recognised are once again dispossessed of their property. The whole point of treaty settlements is to reverse that dispossession. It is a crazy situation that arises out of a settlement process that does not understand what it means to provide restitution to the victims of a historical wrong. The process is actually set up to provide the Government with the easiest possible way out. It is a process that looks good from the outside and gets complaints from the public for being too generous at 1 percent return on the lands that were lost. The Government wins—it looks great for the Government—but Maori miss out again and again. 
The reason we are very pleased to support the amendment to omit clause 15—the full and final settlement clause—from the legislation is that it is a lie. It is not full and final. That is the point. It cannot be full and final until there is a decent process that really and truly recognises what is happening for iwi and hapu in their struggles to get these settlements through. This settlement claim is nearly 10 years old. It is now nearly 10 years since Te Arawa went to the tribunal. They have been fighting through this process for 10 years. They have had to spend thousands and thousands of dollars and it has taken hundreds and hundreds of person hours. People die in the process of trying to get these settlements through. And that is considered fair? They are supposed to be happy with what they have got and every generation from now on is supposed to say: “Well that’s it. It’s full and final. It’s what the legislation says. It’s fair in the circumstances. That’s all right.” It is not OK. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I want to pick up on one or two of the points made by the previous two speakers. Mr Flavell outlined the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in his name and—as I did in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 56 in my name—covered the effects of it across the bill. I will deal with the impacts of the Supplementary Order Paper at the various stages of the bill and with the points raised by the member who has just resumed her seat. 
The first point I want to remake to the Committee is that the deed of settlement and this bill have been negotiated and agreed to in good faith with Te Arawa’s mandated negotiators. The member who has just resumed her seat quite rightly laments those who have died along the way in the 10 years that this process has taken. People have spent their life’s work—and life’s blood in some cases—to get to this point. For others who do not have that depth of background and commitment to then flippantly presume to usurp the authority the mana and the mandate of those people—a mandate I repeat that is upheld by the tribunal—and at a whim to replace their work with a Supplementary Order Paper in this Committee is I think an insult. I think it undermines the integrity of the process—the integrity that the negotiators upheld it as having. I think it is a serious matter. 
I know that the intent of the member who has just resumed her seat is absolutely serious and that she is highly motivated to get a fair result. I do not question that but I ask her to consider whether one should usurp those who have worked for 10 years on the process and who have earned the right to negotiate and have their mandate renewed and upheld over and over again in many cases at huge personal cost to themselves. I think few people will ever understand the cost not only in dollars or in time but also in the effect on those people and their families and whanau. In my view we owe it to them to treat the integrity of this process very carefully. I believe that the process has been one where everyone has come to the table to try to get a fair and proper result. 
The Supplementary Order Paper that Mr Flavell proposes would change fundamentally the agreed settlement. For that reason I cannot and the Government cannot support it. As I have tried to illustrate it is entirely inappropriate to undermine in this way those who have the mandate and I think that on that basis alone the amendments could be rejected. In terms of Part 1 Supplementary Order Paper 57 dated 6 September seeks to amend clause 5. That clause in fact simply outlines the content of the bill and has no actual bearing on the interpretation or application of the legislation. It therefore has no material value. The Supplementary Order Paper also proposes amendments to definitions in clause 11 that are consequential to a proposed amendment to Part 2. I will deal with that when we get to that point in the bill. 
In terms of clause 13 I think the Supplementary Order Paper proposes that any claims in relation to three of the lakes should not be settled. I repeat that the trust board has upheld and renewed the mandate throughout this process in relation to all 14 of the lakes on behalf of all Te Arawa. The Supplementary Order Paper proposes to remove from the settlement with no apparent authority from anyone the claims in relation to three lakes named on the Supplementary Order Paper. The settlement was ratified by the Te Arawa claimant community and I think it would simply be wrong of this Committee to vote for a non-mandated challenge rather than a properly mandated process and a properly mandated ratification process. 
Finally the Supplementary Order Paper also proposes that clause 15 which provides for the full and final settlement of Te Arawa’s claims to the lakes be removed. I simply ask how we can possibly ever hope to ever have a full and final settlement if this Committee at its whim sets about removing from this legislation a properly negotiated full and final settlement negotiated by people who have the mandate and the mana to do so. I urge members to give serious consideration to the issue of who holds the mandate to negotiate. If those people reached a proper and fairly negotiated end result then who has any demonstrated mandate to challenge it? 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I do not want to jump in and support the Greens too much but I do not believe for a minute that my colleague was either usurping or even insulting when she spoke in terms of wanting more for the people of Te Arawa. But hoi ano he take ano tera. [ 
that is another matter. 
] 
I want to ask members to look at clause 5(4)(c) relating to the rights and obligations attaching to ownership of Te Arawa lake beds. I ask the Minister whether there is an issue about liability—when the bill comes into force—if for example I am out on the lake one day and happen to have a wee bit of an accident. If that accident is not of my doing but of the owner’s doing—for example if something jumps out of the water— 
Pita Paraone 
: Taniwha. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I did not say that! But who is liable? Does this mean that the new entity is liable because it is the owner of the lake bed? Is that an issue we should be concerned about? I think that it is something we should concern ourselves with in terms of liability I tell the Minister and I hope he can see his way through to have a yarn about that. 
As well in clause 8 “Text of apology in Maori:” it does not seem as though—and I could be wrong—there is any mention of whanau: “E tuku ana e Karauna i tenei kupu pouri ki a Te Arawa nui tonu ki o ratau tupuna ki nga whakatupuranga ki nga iwi me nga hapu hoki o Te Arawa.” I was always under the understanding that the Treaty of Waitangi mentioned whanau as well. Maybe we should have just a little peek at whether the word whanau is inserted in there. I know that the Minister has said that far be it from us to change any of the negotiated parts of this bill but I respectfully remind him that we too are elected; we too have a mandate; and we too have an obligation to raise issues that come out of the select committee process and out of our talks with various people around the island. 
That is more so at this point I suggest in relation to the member Te Ururoa Flavell because he is the elected member of that area and people have come to him as the elected member to raise concerns about either the process or what is actually in the bill. 
Those are my concerns I tell the Minister and I hope that he takes—now or later on—some time to mention those and see what the issues are about ownership liability and whanau. Sometimes when we use the Treaty of Waitangi we forget about the words that are used in it and we give today’s interpretation of what we think the Treaty is without actually going back and having a look to see what the words are. It is not so much about the meanings or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; it is about the words in the Treaty. I think we do ourselves no favours by not I suppose carrying on the words used in 1840 till now. I have no doubt that sometime in the future we will see this legislation before us again. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I commence talking to this part of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill by making reference to the area of definitions. I specifically refer to the “Cultural Redress Schedule” and say that I think the definition there is quite clear. What is not there and what I would have thought might have been included—and is something that could be considered for future settlement bills—is the definition itself of cultural redress in that clause covering definitions. Although some of us know that cultural redress means the recognition of traditional historical cultural and spiritual association I think it might have been helpful to include that definition in the legislation. 
I refer now to clause 13 and in particular to subclause (1)(a)(i) where reference after the mention of “settlement date” is made to the fact that the claim “is founded on a right arising—(A) from te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) or its principles;”. I want to say straight off that New Zealand First supports the process and it supports the outcome therefore we will support the legislation. However I want to respond to the comment made by Mr Finlayson on behalf of his party. Of course New Zealand First is disappointed that this reference to those ill-defined principles—in fact undefined principles—is included. New Zealand First says that our bill referring to the deletion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when passed will now have to include this legislation. I just wanted to make that point and although it might seem that members within New Zealand First are at odds with one another I tell members we are clearly not; we are just disappointed that references to those principles are included in this legislation. It is just another bill that will be affected by our deletion bill when it becomes law. 
In relation to Supplementary Order Paper 57 proposed by the Maori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell I focus on clause 11 and the definition of “Crown stratum”. His Supplementary Order Paper suggests that the entire definition should be omitted. The effect of that would be that the Crown would retain no ownership interest in the lakes but I think the bill’s whole purpose is to vest just the lake bed and all those attachments—other than the water and the air above the lake bed—in iwi and to leave what has been described as the Crown stratum to the Crown which will hold it of course on behalf of all New Zealanders. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What about the trout? Who’s the trout going to be vested in? 
PITA PARAONE 
: Ha ha! The Supplementary Order Paper also refers to the “Te Arawa Lakebed” in clause 11 and again the provision suggests that the paragraph referred to should be excluded. But if we did that the Crown stratum would be excluded from the definition. Of course this settlement bill is about the ownership of the lake bed being transferred to Te Arawa and it is important that that is defined including the air space and water column commonly known as the Crown stratum. 
The Supplementary Order Paper also seeks to add a new clause to exclude a claim relating to Lakes Ngahewa Ngapouri and Tutaeinanga. In the Maori Affairs Committee we looked at the claim by Ngati Whaoa in terms of Lake Ngapouri and we were advised by officials that although it was correct that all the land around the lake had been sold to the tribe the sale did not include the actual lake or lake bed. So on that advice we in New Zealand First are quite happy to support the ongoing process related to this bill. 
Again the Supplementary Order Paper suggests that clause 15 which provides for full and final settlement should be omitted. It is not the first time that I have heard the member say that settlements are not full and final. In fact I think it has been suggested by the member that the affected iwi hapu and whanau should consider re-claiming or putting in a further claim. Look if that is what we want for the generations to follow then that is what we will get. So I suggest that the member might want to reconsider that position. The other thing is that although he might not want to reconsider the proof of the pudding will come when we actually vote on this bill—and I say that abstention is not good enough. Members are either against the bill or not. I make that comment in reference to how people will vote. Kia ora. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I want just to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised. I want to give Mr Henare reassurance about his concern over liability of Te Arawa for persons having an accident. He did not quite explain what might cause the accident but in general terms an accident occurring in and around the lake would be subject to the normal principles of law. Of course thankfully we still have a Labour Government and therefore we still have accident compensation. So any accident or injury incurred would be well looked after by the accident compensation system. 
The serious matter that the member raised and I think the National member Mr Finlayson raised this during the second reading concerns questions around references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I think it is important to remind members that under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the tribunal is charged with making recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty and determining whether certain matters are consistent with the principles of the Treaty. In the interests of finality this bill needs to refer to the principles of the Treaty to make clear that the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts will no longer have jurisdiction to consider relevant claims in the future. I remind members again that this is an approach that has been taken consistently. Members can go right back if they wish and reference the National Government’s Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 for a case in point. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I have a number of concerns in respect of this bill. The main concern is around mandate. Mandate is something that has been raised consistently throughout discussion on this bill and it is an issue that should be addressed. The need for a robust mandating process is so that in the future things cannot be resurrected or do not explode again. There is a saying about burying things dead and burying things alive. When we bury things alive they fester away and come back to bite us. In Taranaki for instance we deal with a thorny issue quite often. It is called a boxthorn hedge. When people get pricked by a boxthorn hedge they have to dig out the prickle and deal with it then and there. If they do not it lies dormant under the surface of the skin for some time and they think the whole problem has gone away then one day it explodes and there is pus and mess all over the place to be dealt with. The problem with the lack of a robust mandating process in respect of this issue is that when it explodes again it will be Maori who cop the flak for the lack of will to deal properly with this process. 
We have heard from other speakers in the Chamber today about those who are unhappy with some of the resolutions that have come out of this. One of them particularly is Ngati Whaoa’s claim on Lake Opouri. That claim is currently on the table. It has not been dealt with. It deals with part of the settlement of this proposal and is one that is bound to come back. It is interesting to note the history of the Government’s lack of listening to Maori on this issue. We heard my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell talk earlier about the 1922 process. It was interesting and I think quite ironic that even the first time this matter was raised in this sitting last week we witnessed the situation where strings were being pulled and process was being abrogated to try to drag this out because it did not suit the Government to debate it at the correct time as laid down on the Order Paper. Even then it was being dragged out. Things have been jiggery-poked around to try to have them the Government’s way. 
I find New Zealand First’s response to this quite amazing. Its members have said and it was said earlier by my colleague Pita Paraone that they disagree with a big chunk of the bill but they will vote for it tonight on the basis that if New Zealand First is successful with another piece of legislation it will pull this legislation to bits again. Where is the credibility in that? Where is the integrity in a system that allows that to happen? I find that incredibly difficult to understand. Another thing that I find difficult to understand is the response of the Minister Mark Burton when asked some difficult questions again by the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell. In my paraphrased version he came out with: “Well who the hell are you?”. 
The fact is that when we have a close look at the separation of powers—and this is something I spent some time on a little while ago—we see that Parliament is at the top of the pyramid and the executive comes under that. So who the hell are we? We are the people who get to ask what the hell is going on. There is nothing wrong with holding a system to account. In fact that is what we are here for; that is why we are elected to be in this House—to ask those questions. If members do not like the question then they should not slag off the person asking the question. They should give a considered response that will not see in years to come Maori being able to put up their hand again and say that they were not happy with this process that they flagged that several times during the formulation of the settlement process that they raised it time and time again and that it was raised in the House. The punishment for their doing that is to be branded by the rednecks as never being happy and the issue is called a Maori issue as opposed to a New Zealand issue a governance issue a settlement issue or the process of trying to move forward as one nation. 
I ask New Zealand First to have a look at where it is coming from in relation to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The stance those members have taken appears to be inconsistent. There seems to be a weird sort of response to some of these questions; it seems when their leader is out of the country they do not know exactly how they are voting on any particular issue at any one time. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman; nau mai ki te Whare. I want to take just a brief call to respond to a couple of things that have been put before the Committee this afternoon particularly relating to this part although there will be time again later on to have another shot. 
I say that most of Te Arawa—in fact most of the nation—would probably want to have settlements. Why? So we can move on like everybody else wants to do. But as somebody who lives in the electorate that covers Te Arawa I respectfully tell the Committee that I understand fairly clearly the outcomes of the discussion today. I live in the area I know the people and some of them know me. I know the marae; I am there. So I respectfully ask that people understand that this issue is not just about me; it is about Te Arawa. In that light the discussions that have been heard with regard to this bill have hit at the heart not just of me but of Te Arawa. Why? How do I know that? It is because Te Arawa in terms of claims like most other iwi are split smack down the middle. Why? It is because people have not necessarily had the information to be able to assist them. As my colleague Mr Borrows from Wanganui has said our job is to raise those issues. 
I want to make a couple of points to the Minister. Firstly I would have thought and I can understand that statements like “properly negotiated” imply there is a level playing field. I tell the Minister that the people I have spoken to some of whom have been negotiators not just on one Treaty settlement but on other settlements are fairly clearly of the mind that there is no negotiation. They say they are told that here is the deal and they can take it or leave it but that if they do not take it they will go to the back of the queue. Is there any justice in that? I would suggest not despite the fact that the member may well be an honourable person and the officials may well be honourable too. 
We heard from the officials who came in the door and told us of the parameters within which they had to negotiate. I ask the Minister this: is 1 percent fair under anybody’s terms? Do Te Arawa want the whole world? No we do not. Could Te Arawa accept 50 percent? Maybe. Or 20 percent? Maybe. But 1 percent? Give me a break! That is not how it works. So “properly negotiated” is not how I see the settlement with all due respect. Those negotiators talked about guns to the head and that sort of stuff and that is disappointing. I just wanted to make that point. 
Second in terms of my Supplementary Order Paper 57 here is the rub: the bill states that Te Arawa have two people on the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. As to the rest of the members there is no mention of anybody else except the groups—no numbers are specified. One has to be suspicious about that so I raise that issue. 
In respect of Ngahewa one of the three lakes referred to on Supplementary Order Paper 57 again we all followed the process of law. The process of law is in front of the Waitangi Tribunal. Why does the Government not let the process of law finish and then allow the process in this settlement to carry on after that? But here we have three lakes being put straight out while issues to do with them are in front of the Waitangi Tribunal. That is all that is being asked—for the Government to consider those sorts of issues. 
As to whether the settlement is fair and equitable I have talked about that and I suggest that no matter what the member from New Zealand First says—eh Pita; 1 percent—our people will come back. They came back 80 years on from 1922 and here we are today. They will come back again. It will be not just Te Arawa but others who come back. What we have to try to do is to say that on the one hand we want settlements and on the other we want to move on so let us work it out and let us work on other things. Let us think outside the box about how we can achieve a settlement maybe by making time payments. But when we match this settlement up with all the figures I gave in terms of the preamble we see it simply does not match up. Although I accept that the settlement was negotiated to this point in time I see no problem with putting up new ideas and Supplementary Order Papers to address things that may be simple but in fact that mean a hell of a lot in the context of the bill. 
Two people are put up for Te Arawa—that is all. No numbers are specified for anybody else. Another group could have 10 for that matter. All I am saying as an example is that we should put up an equitable number from the groups involved as a way of moving forward because those sorts of things will come back to bite. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to raise a couple of new matters and they are important. Part 1 as we know deals with the purpose of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and with acknowledgments the apology various interpretation provisions and miscellaneous matters. I want to say something following on from Mr Flavell about Subpart 3 “Settlement of claims”. 
When we look at clauses 15 and 16 we might think that these boilerplate provisions would make it tolerably clear that the settlement was full and final and that any attempt to relitigate would fail. But I can tell the Committee now that these clauses can be easily got round depending on the facts of the particular case. These clauses will not get in the way 20 30 or 40 years hence of the disgruntled would-be claimants having their day in court or their day in the tribunal. That is why it is very important not simply to enact boilerplate provisions but also—as I said in an earlier contribution—to really try to deal with the substance of the issue which is to sort out all these problems of mandate and these lingering problems. Otherwise these problems will come back. I have had experience in getting round jurisdictional clauses and I am sure that Mr Chauvel has too. At the end of the day—depending on the facts—it is a piece of cake. 
Can I raise a couple of definitional issues. I must express my amazement at the approach of New Zealand First. As I understand those members’ comments about comments I have made about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi they will support these provisions now only to have them deleted later on. That is a weird approach if ever there was one. It can be described only as absolute humbug. These clauses—and I particularly refer to clauses 7(2)(d) 7(4) and 9—are in my opinion reasonably easily able to be remedied. In my first reading speech I outlined about nine key principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which had been derived from cases and brought together by the Waitangi Tribunal and by academics over various times. I think it should be very easy to remedy those clauses. For example if one takes clause 7(4) we have an acknowledgment by the Crown that it failed to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa as part of the 1922 agreement and that that was a breach of the principles of the Treaty. Well what principle? At one stage when I was talking about this matter one of the Associate Ministers called out: “It is the principle of protection.” and I asked why the Government would not put it in. So it is a reasonably straightforward exercise to spell out with some specificity what principle of the Treaty of Waitangi we are talking about. 
Pita Paraone 
: So you are supporting it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well on behalf of the National Party I have said that we will support the legislation although it is pretty crummy legislation. For example it seeks to delete provisions that are already deleted—in a piece of masterly drafting on New Zealand First’s part. But in answer to the member we will support the bill. However it will need a lot of hard work done on it; the Justice and Electoral Committee will do that. 
The second point I make is about the Crown’s acknowledgments. There is a general point and a particular point. I will ask the Minister about the general point and I know that his preliminary response will be to say that the National Party did this when it was in Government—and I acknowledge that it did. I ask whether it is wise given the experience of time—and after all that lot have been in for 7 years now—to include in the body of the legislation acknowledgments and an apology. Should they stand as part of the deed rather than our run the risk that they can be subject to statutory interpretation concerns later on? I personally think that those acknowledgments should not be contained in the legislation. I want to know why they are there. But having said that there is the particular question of what exactly these acknowledgments are. What is spiritual importance? What does that mean and how does it relate to cultural importance? How does it relate to traditional importance? These terms are vague and—I am telling the Minister now—they will give rise to concerns later on. 
The next point will come up more in Part 2’s debate but I will touch on it now. It is the definition of “Crown stratum”. From my researches I think this is the first time it has appeared in legislation and I would be very interested to know how this concept developed. There is of course an assumption that the Crown owns the stratum. 
The final point I make relates to clause 17 because I am not sure about the practical impact of it. This clause deals with the rule against perpetuities not applying. What are the relevant rules of the Perpetuities Act 1964 that could apply here? If the Minister could explain this provision I would be very grateful. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Due to the duties I have as deputy leader of our party and also as shadow Leader of the House I have not been able to be in the Chamber until this point. I am the Maori affairs spokesperson and the spokesperson on Treaty issues and I would appreciate the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that our friend over here Chuck Chauvel wants to shut everybody out but I just implore you Mr Chairperson to perhaps think about it. I know that you have almost jumped the gun and got the vote under way but not quite. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I was not seeking leave; I was acknowledging your ability as the Chair Mr Chairperson to make a decision. The text of acknowledgment in clause 7(1) of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill states: “(1) The Crown recognises that Te Arawa value the Te Arawa lakes and the lakes’ resources as taonga. The Crown acknowledges the spiritual cultural economic and traditional importance to Te Arawa of the lakes and the lakes’ resources.” I think that that statement begs the question of who Te Arawa are. Further it would ask the question if this is to be a full and final settlement whether we do not have to be certain that the overwhelming majority of Te Arawa are happy with the settlement. And does that not then in turn cause us to look at the mandating of those who have been in negotiations with the Government? 
 Firstly I think those who have been in negotiation have acted honourably and in the belief they were doing their best for the people who had put them there. However we still go back to the point that there were 20 submission on the bill and of those 20 submissions 18 were opposed to it. That group of 18 submitters all came from Te Arawa. This afternoon we have heard Te Ururoa Flavell making it very clear that inside Te Arawa there are some significant objections to this particular settlement. So it would be useful for the Minister to stand up and tell us what the mandating process was. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I already have when the member was— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It does not matter. The Minister could do this through every part. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Well I did. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well did the Minister tell us ultimately that only 4000 of this group of 40000 voted for the settlement? 
Dave Hereora 
: He did that Gerry. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Dave Hereora—I will say that name again: Dave Hereora which is a name that not many people will have heard before none the less he is a member of Parliament—is a fine gentleman. He does a marvellous job chairing the Maori Affairs Committee—I mean that quite sincerely. He has said that that point has been covered. The question then is why the Government is comfortable that fewer than 10 percent of those who say they are Te Arawa have voted in favour of this settlement. The settlement should therefore be an imposition on the rest of them. I ask Mr Hereora whether it is not true that much of Maori history is oral and the stories that belong to a particular iwi are transmitted from one generation to another. What is to stop the story for 90 percent of Te Arawa being: “We got sold out. This was not a full and final settlement. We were not part of it. It’s not what we wanted.”? For anyone to say that that will not happen because the settlement is done by Act of Parliament and once it is all done they will all be happy and never come back again I say is rubbish. 
This is the second go at this bill. We freely acknowledge that the first time round was not too hot. But it was an imposition the first time round that causes us to be here now. If only 10 percent or less of one’s whole iwi was in favour of this settlement then it is an imposition now as well. No one can claim that the settlement is full and final and only people who have their eyes shut would raise their hands and say “I vote” on the basis of this being full and final. 
It seems to me that it would not have been hard to sort this out before we got to this stage. Why were some of the affected hapu not included in the negotiating group? Why did the Government not insist on some form of rununga structure that had that wider representation? What was it about the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board and the exclusions of representation on that board that the Government found so acceptable? I say again that I mean no offence to the trust board or its members but I think the Office of Treaty Settlements should be looking at getting settlements that are very very well mandated where there can be no doubt about what is accepted. Te Ururoa Flavell made the good point that these are generous settlements on the part of the settling party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that the question be now put. 
A party vote was called for on the question Thatt 
he question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Sharples Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 5(5)(a) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 3. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Cultural redress: vesting of Te Arawa lakebeds 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate on Part 2 includes debate on schedule 3. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Part 2 provides for the vesting of the Te Arawa lake beds and the rights and obligations of and limitations on ownership. It includes clauses relating to the protection of recreational activities—which is an important part of this settlement—public utilities existing structures and existing commercial activities and clauses relating to the consent process for new structures and commercial activities. 
In relation in particular to the issue of access—a matter that came up today and during the second reading—a number of members expressed concern that the settlement separates the lake beds from their waters. If I could perhaps explain the beds of the Te Arawa lakes are transferred to Te Arawa and the water column and airspace known collectively in this bill as the “Crown stratum” remain vested in the Crown. That was in large part done to protect the public interest as it enables the Crown to have an active role in determining what happens on and in the lakes that are subject to the settlement. In negotiating the ownership provisions of the settlement Te Arawa and the Crown agreed that the Crown retaining ownership of the water column and airspace above the lake beds was appropriate and enabled the interests of both the public as represented by the Crown and equally Te Arawa to be met. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Clause 22 “Status of conservation areas” states: “Any part of a Te Arawa lakebed or the Crown stratum that is a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987 ceases to be a conservation area.” Can the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton tell us whether that means the conservation estate will be used to settle claims. If so are we setting a precedent for the Crown to use the conservation estate as a redress tool? I would like him to look at that. 
Also clause 23 is about the vesting of the lake beds. Clause 24 “Freehold estate in lakebeds inalienable” states: “(1) The Trustees of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust must not—(a) dispose of or alienate the freehold estate of all or part of a Te Arawa lakebed; or (b) grant or create a mortgage or other charge in or over all or part of a Te Arawa lakebed.” I am not suggesting for one moment that Te Arawa would do that because they worked very hard to get them back—for 80-odd years. But should they not have the same rights as you and I do when we own fee simple title to a property? I am allowed to sell my property; I have ownership of it. Do we need to tell the other side of the deal that they are not allowed to do that? Is there any reason why that provision is in the bill? 
Clause 26 is entitled “Limits to obligations for weeds attached to lakebeds”. Clauses 25 and 27 also relate to that and I understand them but who is responsible for cleaning up the lakes? Is it Environment Bay of Plenty the Rotorua District Council the Government or a new entity—one made up of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust Environment Bay of Plenty and all the other organisations? How much will the clean-up cost? Or are we there yet? 
The next question to the Minister may seem facetious but it is not. Clause 30 “Boundaries relating to Te Arawa lakebeds” states: “(1) There is a moveable natural boundary between a Te Arawa lakebed and any adjoining land …”. Does that mean that if erosion occurs on the boundaries of a lake that land will become part of the lake; if so what happens when there is an earthquake as is wont to happen in the Tarawera area? 
Clause 35 “Liability” states: “The Trustees of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust are not liable for an existing structure for which they would apart from this section be liable by reason of their ownership of the Te Arawa lakebed …”. So what about a new structure? 
I turn to clause 41 concerning new commercial activities and new structures. That clause is probably the one that leads the National Party to say we will not be supporting the bill. Basically it adds another level of administration or I suppose the power of veto is in the hands of not only those who look after the Resource Management Act but also now the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. It will have the power of veto over new commercial activities and new structures on the lakes. We are not happy about that. If we are to have a society where there is one law for all and we all come under the Resource Management Act then let us have that situation. If somebody wants to build a new structure on a lake does this legislation mean there is to be a regime whereby that person first has to get approval from the lakes trust? When approval is given for that structure does the person then have to toddle off to the district council to try to get a resource consent for it? Or is it vice versa—which comes first? That is what we are not happy about. We would rather see a situation where anybody who is building a new structure or setting up an enterprise or commercial activity on a lake has a one-stop shop. And that obviously would be the Resource Management Act—the same as for any other normal person in our society. That is really the crux of the matter in terms of one of the major issues that we have with regard to this bill. 
If the Minister could address some of the points—not all but some of them—that I have made I would appreciate it very much. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and I have some questions for the Minister the Hon Mark Burton as well. 
As I read through the bill I was struck by clause 24 under “Rights and obligations of ownership” in the same way as my colleague the Hon Tau Henare was regarding the rights of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust over their own property. The legislation is a full and final settlement and there it is but then all sorts of holds are put on the trustees of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. The bill states that they must not “(a) dispose of or alienate the freehold estate of all or part of a Te Arawa lakebed;”. I can see some fairly obvious reasons for that—it means it is still available to the public and perhaps opens up that control for everyone to use. But it does not make sense to me that the trustees do not have the same rights as everyone else does over ownership so that they can do as they so wish with their property. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that. I may misunderstand the issue having come in and read the law as it is but then a lot of people will do that. 
I also have questions around the fact that trustees may grant “a leasehold estate in all or part of a Te Arawa lakebed for a term of not more than 35 years”. I would have thought it was up to them how they held a leasehold and what they did with their own land if this legislation is to go through. 
I also want to talk a bit more about “Limitations on rights and obligations” in clauses 25 to 27. The media have raised a lot of concern around the issue of the lakes not being handed over in the same state they were in 80 years ago. As someone who comes from the area I certainly can see the changes over the last 20 or 30 years. I have questions around that issue and what it means. If the trustees are not responsible for the control or removal of weeds for example then there are so many questions around who actually is responsible. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about this because the answer is not in the legislation itself so there is some concern as to what sort of deals have been done to have those things looked after and what sort of accountability there is to ensure those things are followed up for all the people who are using the lakes. 
I also did not understand and needed help with the issue of recreational activities in clause 32. I wonder if the Minister could explain that to me a little bit more. Is the Minister saying that everyone will still be able to do those activities at the lakes or will they now be just for the use of Te Arawa? Reading through clause 32 I did not feel that the legislation was as clear as it could have been. I suppose it is too late for the Minister to look at an amendment but I could look at one that made that clause a little clearer as to “swimming boating water-skiing and fishing to the extent that those activities are recreational;”. Even looking at clause 40 I could not work out if those activities will still be open to everyone at the same level that they currently are and under the same protections and laws or whether they will be changed because the lakes will be under trust ownership and the trust would have more say as to who could use the lakes for recreational activities. 
That raises another issue about how the trust will work in with the local bodies on the laws that govern the area and what is acceptable for public use and what is not. Obviously there will have to be changes because what the public and the council think is acceptable use of the land may not be considered acceptable usage by Te Arawa once it goes back into their ownership. They may wish to make some considerable changes to the lakes and the lake beds and how they are used how they are fished and everything else. I would be very interested in hearing how those changes will come about and what difference that could make to the public that have been using the lakes for—in many cases—generations and for quite some lifetimes. 
I would be most interested in hearing answers to those. Thank you. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I speak in brief response to one or two of the points members have made. First Mr Henare raised a question under clause 30(1) about the “moveable natural boundary” issue. I think the answer to his concern is contained in clause 30(2) and that is that “the boundary is governed by the applicable common law rules of accretion erosion and avulsion.” It was a fair concern but I think it is taken care of. 
Perhaps the more substantial issue that he raised—as did Paula Bennett—relates to the environmental degradation of the lakes. I think it is important to stress here that Treaty settlements are not intended to address environmental degradation and pollution. The environmental regulatory regime that exists at the local and national levels will continue to apply post-settlement. Therefore any obligations upon local and central government to clean up the Te Arawa lakes that exist before the settlement will continue to exist post-settlement. That point is actually explicit in the bill—that Te Arawa will not be liable for any contamination that exists. I think the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group that is created herein will play a valuable role in and make an important contribution to improving the integrated and sustainable management of the lakes. Again it is really clear that the group is not charged with the responsibility for cleaning up the lakes; that responsibility lies with local and central government. 
To that end the Te Arawa lakes water quality problems are being dealt with through the Rotorua lakes protection and restoration programme developed by Environment Bay of Plenty Rotorua District Council and indeed Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. Under that programme I say to members action plans are in place to address water quality problems on several lakes. In addition the Ministry for the Environment has committed funding and is continuing to work with its partners Environment Bay of Plenty the Rotorua District Council and Te Arawa to clean up Lake Rotoiti. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora kia ora ano tatou katoa. I want to pick up a couple of points in this particular part of Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and put them for the Minister the Hon Mark Burton to consider. 
The first one is the definition of Crown stratum. It was covered partly in Part 1 but I want to raise it here even though some of my discussion has been ruled out of order. That is all right I will leave it there and move on to Part 2 clause 23. Clause 23(2) states: “The Crown retains the ownership of the Crown stratum.” That is the statement in the bill and the Minister in his explanatory note has added on: “as Crown land under the Land Act 1948”. The question to the Committee and people listening at home is how the Crown can retain ownership of something that it has not proven ownership to in law. How can the Crown claim something that it has not proved ownership to in law? And what is the reference to the Land Act of 1948? There is no mention whatsoever of the Crown stratum in that Act or in fact in any other current legislation. 
According to our research it is defined for the first time in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. So here we have this notion of a Crown stratum that is all of a sudden being defined at this point in time—not in the past but here today. When asked about this in question time last week the Minister the Hon Mita Ririnui suggested that the words are new but the concept is not. This is interesting when we consider that there is a hell of a lot of care taken to ensure that the wording of bills is absolutely on the nose. Pinching is theft—same concept but different words. 
The Minister said that the Crown’s view was that it had ownership of the water stratum including the airspace on behalf of all New Zealanders. Here is the thing—Te Arawa could look after it quite well. Ehara matou i te iwi kaiponu. [ 
We are not selfish people. 
]  
We are willing to share as well and to work with all other New Zealanders. But this has not been tested. It has never been tested. It has not been considered. Unfortunately that seems to be how things work—the Crown just takes things when it wants to. It reminds me of other legislation that has been before Parliament. My research tells me about the Maori Affairs Act 1953; about Maori land being considered unproductive; and of course about the infamous Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
If the concept is not new why was there no mention of it in the Lake Taupo legislation the Ngai Tahu settlement or the Ngati Turangitukua claims settlement? The main problem with this is that the Crown has assumed ownership without having that assumption tested at all. The Maori Party will tell all of Maoridom: “Here we go again another confiscation.” We should let the process run and let the law follow its course rather than taking land away as we did with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
In June 1990 a Treaty claim was made called Wai 150 which was lodged by Sir Graham Latimer on behalf of the New Zealand Maori Council. The claim sought findings that Maori have rangatiratanga over the allocation of radio frequencies and that in the absence of an agreement with Maori the sale of frequency management licences under the Radiocommunications Act of 1989 would breach the Treaty of Waitangi by being prejudicial to the interests of Maori. The report noted: “The spectrum is a taonga to be shared by the tribes and by all mankind. Neither of the treaty partners can have monopoly rights to this resource.” Although the ownership issue is still to be fully tested the Waitangi Tribunal is clear that the Crown cannot have a monopoly on the resource. So here is a further treaty breach. The report continued “Tribal rangatiratanga gives Maori a greater right of access to the newly discovered spectrum. In any scheme of spectrum management it has rights greater than the general public and especially when it is being used for the protection of the taonga of the language and the culture.” All of these issues come to the table when we are considering this bill. 
Clause 25 “No rights to the water or aquatic life” states that the fee simple estate in the lake bed is vested in the trustees of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. The bill states that this does not include rights or obligations to the water. Let us define what a lake is. Here are some definitions of a lake. The first is that it is “a body of fresh or salt water of considerable size surrounded by land”. The second definition is “a large inland body of fresh water or saltwater”.  
The Concise Oxford Dictionary  
states that a lake is a “large area of water surrounded by land”. During the consultation process people at various hui asked: “How the hang can you have a lake without water?”. Te Arawa has a lake back but there is one problem—there is no water in it. There is no clear definition in respect of this. 
So what are we getting back? We are getting the silt the pollution the paru and the tutae on the bottom and Te Arawa is supposed to be grateful. Unfortunately that is how it seems to be. It is also unfortunate that the trustees do not have any rights or obligations in respect of aquatic life in the lakes. Damn I wish we had that. But we get the plants that are attached to the lake bed. We get the plants—how awesome. Who looks after the clean-up? At this point in time there is no commitment from the district council although it has intimated that commitment may be there. Similarly Environment Bay of Plenty and Environment Waikato are supposed to be part of the deal somehow but there has been nothing from them. What about the Government? I am still waiting to hear but I understand that some money has been given. Here is the rub: the Te Arawa lakes settlement is $10 million and the clean-up will cost $200 million. So we have a bit of a problem. 
The hope will be that there is a commitment to follow through with cleaning up these lakes. We also hope that we will go back and revisit this notion of Crown stratum because it is very important. How can the Crown claim something that has not even been put into the law of the country? There is something wrong there. We will be making a big noise through Maori Television and whatever other medium we have to make sure that this information goes out to our people. Because in a subtle way we have another confiscation on its way and the Maori Party will not stand by to let that happen. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I agree with the previous speaker that this is the first time the concept of Crown stratum has appeared in settlement legislation. He has raised some very interesting questions that really need to be addressed. 
I approached Part 2 by looking for example at the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act to see the way in which for example Lake Te Waihora or Lake Ellesmere was dealt with and also a couple of other lakes. It is interesting that in that legislation there was the transfer of the fee simple. In section 171 of that Act there was reference to the title extending to the bed only. There were also provisions about existing public access and use and existing lawful commercial use and structures. But it did not go as far as this part of the bill is purporting to do regarding the Te Arawa lake beds. 
I focus for example on clause 24 which provides that the freehold estate of the lake beds is to be inalienable. I do not know from my brief reading if that is specifically referred to in any of the provisions of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. In effect as my colleague Mr Henare said this means that less than full property rights are being transferred to Te Arawa because Te Arawa cannot dispose of or alienate the freehold estate nor can they grant or create a mortgage or other charge in or over a part of the lake bed. I cannot understand why they should not be permitted to do that. Subclause (2) of clause 24 is unexceptional because it provides for a transfer or transmission to a trustee and of course a provision like that would be needed. But the trustees of the trust may grant a leasehold estate in all or part of a lake bed for a term not more than 35 years and they may also grant licences easements or profits à prendre over all or part of the lake bed. 
So I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton because we are getting new concepts engrafted on to this legislation. As Mr Flavell said it appears that this is the first time the concept of Crown stratum has come along. My second point relates to what exactly the Te Arawa Lakes Trust can do with this freehold estate that is transferred to it. This legislation seems to give them less than full ownership rights. 
I will not deal with other parts of Part 2 because they deal with recreational matters and existing structures and so on but I endorse what Mr Henare said about new commercial activities and new structures. Clause 41 provides that the written consent of the trustees will be required before new structures and new commercial activities may be permitted. Actually the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act seems to be silent on the issue of new commercial activities and new structures although there is provision for a joint management plan to be introduced by Ngai Tahu and the Minister of Conservation and Director-General of Conservation. In any event what we have in clause 41 is another layer of management and it does seem to be a rather clumsy way of dealing with matters. 
So they are perhaps matters that the Minister in the chair may care to address. The rest of the part is pretty unexceptional and I will not waste the time of the Committee on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise members that the first amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to omit subclause (2) of clause 23 and to omit paragraph (a) of clause 25 are out of order because they are inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 23 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Other cultural redress 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate on this part—clauses 47 to 79—includes debate on schedule 4. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Part 3 of the bill relates to other cultural redress including the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group which we have talked about at some length already today; protocols between the Crown and Te Arawa; place name changes; and fisheries redress. The bill requires the Rotorua District Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to establish the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. It provides that the group is a permanent joint committee under the Local Government Act 2002. The bill also sets out the purpose of the group and that it is required to comply with the terms of the specified agreement. 
There is also provision here for the issue of protocols by the Minister of Conservation the Minister of Fisheries the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Minister for the Environment. The form for each of the protocols is provided in the deed of settlement. That matter was raised I think in the second reading. A member expressed some concern about what form they would take. In fact the form of such protocols is actually in the bill. 
Finally the bill contains the Crown’s acknowledgment of the statement made by Te Arawa of its particular association with Te Arawa lakes. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora ano. Kia ora tatou. I have a couple of quick points. 
Most of the other issues have been covered but one of the things I have not had answered which I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton to consider is an issue in clause 48 which is in respect of the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. I put forward an amendment earlier to clause 5(5)(a) in respect of the number of Te Arawa members on that group being two and I would not mind a response on that because I think it is a key issue. I tried to put forward an amendment on it earlier but the Minister did not give me a response with regard to how we might cover the equitable arrangement around it. So I would appreciate some feedback over that. 
The other issue we talked about was the bigger picture around the whole notion about accountability in a sense—not just the statement in the bill about Te Arawa having two members. As we mentioned earlier the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty will be parties to the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group but one would have thought that the notion of equitable numbers between the new owner—namely Te Arawa—and those other bodies responsible would allow for a better balance of power sharing in the sense of rangatiratanga under article 2 of the Treaty and therefore might have meant a better way forward. I know that a number of submitters—and indeed people back in Rotorua—have argued that as the new owners surely we can have equitable numbers on the body that will be looking after the clean-up of the lakes. They were fairly adamant that it would be very good to address that sort of notion. So I wanted to address that. 
The other provisions I want to bring to the attention of the Minister are new clauses 51A and 51B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 which is in my name. He will know that one of the issues raised was that of the three lakes—namely Ngahewa Opouri/Ngapouri and Tutaeinanga—that fall under the jurisdiction of Environment Waikato. So the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group will be made up of members of the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty with Te Arawa—and we hope Te Arawa will have equal representation with the other two parties if that discussion is to have some fruition—but that group will have no jurisdiction over three of those 14 lakes. There are 14 lakes and three of them are outside the jurisdiction of the three parties that are supposed to be cleaning the place up. 
So what happens for those three lakes? Nought. There is a view that the group should simply talk to Environment Waikato but there is nothing there that acts as a lever to get Environment Waikato to come to the party. The officials told the Maori Affairs Committee that Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 variously requires Environment Waikato to have regard to the Treaty of Waitangi and the values of Te Arawa in respect of their ancestral lands and water. That was supposed to be the leverage that would make sure that Environment Waikato comes to the party. Well if that is the case then it should have come to the party some 20 or 30 years ago because that would have helped keep those lakes in the pristine condition that some of us remember as children. The Te Arawa Maori Trust Board told us that it had had no discussions with Environment Waikato. So I seek some assurances from the Minister in terms of the particular point of those three lakes being outside the jurisdiction of Environment Bay of Plenty and in the hands of Environment Waikato that Te Arawa has some guarantees that the concept of cleaning up all of the lakes in one shot will be part of the work conducted by Environment Waikato. I hope he will provide some sort of response to that. Kia ora. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I was not going to take another call but I will quickly answer Mr Flavell’s two comments. I think I made the point earlier that responsibility for cleaning up the lakes in the end does not change as a result of the settlement. Ultimately the responsibility continues to sit with the local and central agencies where it resides now. 
The other matter the member raises has to do with the membership of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group and that is covered in his amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57. I point out to the member that the agreement between the three parties is actually included in the schedule to the deed of settlement not in the bill. That is where the detail of that agreement is laid out. The proposed amendments would fundamentally alter what is effectively the negotiated agreement between the Rotorua District Council the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. As I say that is included in the schedule to the settlement and that is where the functions of the group are prescribed. It would simply be inappropriate to try to override that through this mechanism. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take a short call in this debate on Part 3. I raise in particular the function and procedures of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group which are to include the review amendment and revocation provisions contained in the 8 October 2004 agreement. At the moment Te Arawa is on the committee at the discretion of the local authorities so establishing the group by deed will ensure Te Arawa is on the group as of right and therefore will ensure we have a significant and ongoing role in the strategic management of the lakes. We have heard that the strategy group will be made up of the Te Arawa post-settlement governance entity the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Rotorua District Council and that it will lead to the provision of leadership to organisations within the community and the identification of significant and emerging lakes etc. 
In respect of a matter raised by the Maori Party member Mr Flavell in relation to three lakes standing outside the jurisdiction of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council I think that that strategy committee will set up in the first instance a platform for the community to have some administration and management of the lakes. In leading to that the committee will under the Resource Management Act invite Environment Waikato to participate as well as time progresses. So I think it is an opportunity to set in place a structure so that the management of the lakes can be shared within the community. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The typescript amendment in the name of the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell to insert a new heading and a new clause 48A is out of order because it is inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 3. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Miscellaneous provisions 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Schedule 4 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I stand to address the title of this Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. The question asked earlier by the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell was: “What is a lake without any water in it?”. In actual fact the only thing being given in respect of each of these lakes is the bed of the lake. It seems that the new definition of a Crown stratum is a huge move to change the goalposts. I propose that the title of this bill should be the “Te Arawa Lake Bed (Take It or Leave It) Bill”. 
We know as discussed earlier that Ngati Whaoa have a claim but in respect of this claim the Government is saying it needs some settlements under its belt so it is moving with this one and is not worrying about the existing claim. At the same time it is not worrying about the uncertainties or issues that remain in respect of Te Arawa. The Government has moved in spite of that and said that Te Arawa must take the settlement or leave it and just move along. That is the first point. 
Sitting suspended from 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Before the dinner break I suggested that the new title of the bill should be the “Te Arawa Lake Bed (Take It or Leave It) Bill” to account for the fact that it has nothing to do with lakes but only lake beds in so far as what is being acknowledged in the settlement to Te Arawa. I also made the point that some cognisance needs to be taken of the fact that the settlement is contested by Ngati Whaoa in respect of Lake Opouri. To move on with the settlement while that is still unresolved seems to be unfair and seems to endorse the “take it or leave it” part of the proposed new title. 
Another obvious inequity is the proposal that we grant the holder title in fee simple. But fee simple entitles holders of land to be able to deal with the land as they see fit such as selling it or raising mortgages on it and this legislation explicitly denies that right—although I note in another inconsistency there is the ability to grant a lease over that land. So that seems to be in line with: “We will promise you everything and give you nothing and before you get it we will take it away from you.” That was not done in the Ngai Tahu settlement so there is a real inconsistency there and one has to wonder why if Treaty settlements are to be dealt with in a consistent manner that would be the case. 
The creation of a Crown stratum which did not exist under other settlements and seems to be a new animal under this legislation seems to warrant some sort of explanation but that has not been given. Other than a definition of what it is there does not appear in the legislation to be any tie-in with where that comes from in law. Some explanation is needed because it seems to add to the “take it or leave it” bit as well. What it boils down to is that it is pretty much the “We won you lost. Eat that.” approach alluded to late in 1999. That seems to be the approach to how this entire legislation has been dealt with and the settlement. 
Through the course of this debate a number of issues and concerns have been raised by way of seeking explanation and some sort of fleshing out of what the terms mean yet no attempt has been made to do that. The whole point of debating this legislation in the Committee is to get clarification on those issues so that people can have some clarity. The people who are talking about their legacy and about what they in turn wish to hold in trust to then pass on to their future generations have a right to know exactly where the Crown sees itself on this. If it is unclear as to what this legislation means precisely then what is it handing on? Is it really just handing on a headache not only for the people of Te Arawa and the people of Ngati Whaoa but also for the rest of us? 
We have seen in the past that every time Maori have tried to redress some inconsistency over time it is Maori who cop the flak. They are the ones who get whacked around the ears by the rednecks who say: “This is a Maori problem. Here they go again.” and it detracts from the sovereignty Maori have over the things that are acknowledged to be theirs pursuant to the Treaty of Waitangi. If we do not sort this out now we will ensure there will be a problem 5 10 50 or 100 years down the track. The point was made earlier that the 1922 decision has come back 80 years later. What we are creating is just another headache for people to deal with in years to come. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Very briefly a number of points of interest have emerged from this debate in the Committee stage. The first by reference to recitals (13) through (19) of the preamble is that negotiations were conducted at a very dilatory pace over a number of years. But at the end of the day the Government’s approaches to this particular Treaty settlement could be described in this way: the first approach—that of the Government to Te Arawa—is to “take it or leave it” as Mr Borrows said; the second approach when dealing with the legislation before the House and this Committee is to “accept it or forget about it and go and see a taxidermist”. I think those approaches are most unfortunate especially when there are very important and legitimate issues that need to be raised—and these in essence have emerged during the course of the debate. 
The first issue which has been unsatisfactorily dealt with by the Minister Mark Burton and the Government team concerns mandate. The report of the Maori Affairs Committee that deals with mandate questions is unsatisfactory. As I said when we debated Part 1 if mandate questions are not resolved satisfactorily—if the discordant remnants of Te Arawa are not brought into this settlement—there will be problems in years to come. 
That leads on to the second point. It is very easy to put into the bill jurisdictional clauses that have the effect of trying to oust the jurisdiction of the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal in relation to matters concerning the Te Arawa settlement. I have seen such clauses before in relation both to Treaty settlements and to other attempts to oust the jurisdiction of the courts—but where there is a will there is a way. If there are issues of justice that remnants of Te Arawa want to raise in 20 years’ time and the courts consider those issues legitimate then they will get around the jurisdictional issues. So the kinds of points raised by the National Party and the Maori Party will not go away. 
The third issue raised in the course of the Committee stage concerns definitions. Right throughout this debate—in the first reading the second reading and again in the Committee stage—I have raised issues about the vague reference to principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I have raised questions about what references to spiritual significance and cultural significance are and I like my friend Mr Flavell have referred to this interesting concept of Crown stratum that appears for the first time in this legislation. I think more care needed to be taken with some of the definitions and with some of the concepts. When looking at Part 2 I contrasted the scheme of this bill with the scheme for example of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998. So some interesting definitional issues were not properly addressed. 
Finally when my team on the National Party and I looked at Part 2 which deals with issues about cultural redress we said that some issues arose in the context of that particular part. I regret to say that they were not adequately dealt with. I particularly refer to clause 24. As Mr Borrows said it transfers lake beds to Te Arawa and provides for a scheme of transfer that means the people of Te Arawa have something less than full entitlements to their property. For example they are not able to dispose of or alienate a freehold which is a fetter on their rights as property owners. They are not entitled to grant or create a mortgage but they are entitled to lease the estate for a term of not more than 35 years. They are entitled to grant easements and licences. Those issues were not properly resolved. 
Above all if I can say this what I have found most interesting is the unique position of New Zealand First in relation to this bill. It has an approach that can only be described as bizarre. It will support this bill and the Treaty clauses in it but only as it were pro tem because as soon as Mr Woolerton’s bill on the issue of deleting Treaty principles comes back to the House New Zealand First will seek to delete them from this bill. 
As I have said on more than one occasion in this Parliament Treaty settlements are and should be a cause for great rejoicing in New Zealand. As I have also said before quoting Isaiah they give people the chance to undo the burdens of the past so that everyone can point to the future in a spirit of optimism and goodwill. But this is bad legislation. It really does not address some fundamental issues. If you like it is a paint-by-numbers bill that in a boilerplate kind of way seeks to impose on this settlement the standard forms terms and conditions of other settlements. As I have attempted to explain by reference to the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act every settlement is in a sense sui generis and it requires sui generis legislation. It requires people to look at the particular circumstances that gave rise to the settlement. I regret to say that with this legislation the particular circumstances of the Te Arawa people have not been addressed. That is why with great disappointment really and bearing in mind the history of negotiations over the years National will be opposing the passage of this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Kia ora tatou katoa. Firstly I will summarise some of the comments made this afternoon and this evening in respect of this bill. I will make it really clear to the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton that in a sense I am fairly confident that most iwi Maori would like to move forward with the settlements behind us. But the mere fact that most of the iwi involved in settlements have experienced splits that have devastated iwi hapu and whanau in some cases resulting in physical violence in relation to simple things like votes must tell us there are some concerns about the process. The Maori Party intends to continue to challenge the process used to achieve settlements. But we are also willing to contribute to some ideas that have been put up by a number of people over the years to try to find a way forward. We also acknowledge the work being done by the new chief executive or general manager—whatever his title is—of the Office of Treaty Settlements in going around people and getting some views back in respect of moving forward. That is the first thing I want to say. 
But the practical reality right here and right now is that the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill has come to this Parliament so I attempted in the first part of this session to talk about its history and how it has got here. We talked about the notion that in 1922 one might have thought that this particular issue had been solved through agreement between the Crown and Te Arawa. I believe that Te Arawa my people my koroua and kuia believed at that time there was a way forward by way of an agreement that looked at the issue of ownership. The practical reality right here and right now is that we are revisiting the dreams and aspirations the people had at that time on the back of the view that back in 1922 it might have been thought an agreement would provide an economic platform for Te Arawa to develop through a board. But that development did not happen. Why? The annuity did not increase. There was no issue about reviewing it and of course over time the money got to the point of being absolutely useless for the development of the people. 
The deed today comes to us against that background and it is also acknowledged by the Crown that it comes against the background of a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is an acknowledgement by the Crown of that and that this settlement is about doing something about it. How does the Crown do something about it? It offers some money and it offers some lakes back. Yet as we said a little earlier the Crown has offered the lakes back but there is no water—water is not part of the settlement. So one would think that that issue remains out there to be discussed. 
The problem as I mentioned earlier is that the Crown has assumed ownership of the Crown stratum—that being the water above the lake bed and the sky above that. The big issue for me is that that matter has not been tested in court and other speakers along with myself have said that this is the first time the notion has been tested in the Parliament of this land. The downside of it of course for the benefit of those who are listening is that it creates a precedent. Once a precedent is created it says that that is it for everybody else. So everybody needs to know that here it is on the Table tonight and again on Thursday that the Crown has assumed ownership of the stratum. How do we know that? It is called the Crown stratum yet this is the first time it appears in the laws of this land. 
So will this agreement be lasting? I have suggested as have other speakers that no the agreement will not be lasting. It will not be full and final and I make no apologies for encouraging our people to come back and relitigate the whole issue. Why? It has come against a background of protest that started with the “fiscal envelope”. Is the “fiscal envelope” still alive? The answer is yes it is. I need to say that this bill is set in the context of the “fiscal envelope” and that all of the conditions that came out of the settlements with Ngai Tahu and Tainui have had an impact on this particular bill. One issue that came up which I want to put out there again is in respect of ownership. OK—Te Arawa are getting the lakes back but in fact they can be outvoted by the other two bodies that are part of the management board or the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. Te Arawa can be outvoted in fact by the same groups that contributed to the pollution of Lake Rotorua. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will make just one final brief contribution to this debate. We have heard from a number of members including Mr Finlayson who quoted Isaiah. I would like to quote to him Ecclesiastes: “To every thing there is a time …” and it is time for this to be settled. It is time for this Parliament to recognise that despite the comment made in the course of this debate we have duly mandated negotiators. They are not self-appointed or self-opinionated negotiators but duly mandated human beings—who I am sure are not perfect any more than we are and who I am sure have not negotiated the perfect settlement any more than the Crown negotiators have but who have negotiated in good faith over years a settlement. And that is their right to do as the duly mandated negotiators. 
That is a mandate that Sir Douglas Graham recognised on behalf of the Crown and I acknowledge his fine work. Margaret Wilson who followed him continued to recognise that mandate. I recognise her fine work. I have continued on behalf of the Crown to recognise that mandate and I remind the Committee that so has the Waitangi Tribunal when that mandate has been challenged. I simply suggest to members that it is time this settlement was allowed to reach its conclusion. It may not be perfect but it is the result of the best endeavour of the negotiators from the Crown and the duly mandated negotiators from Te Arawa to negotiate together in good faith and to reach this settlement. This is their settlement; this is what they have arrived at. I simply urge members to allow it to progress and to allow the people to then move on from grievance to development. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Third Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time 
. The main feature of this bill is its aim to get back into the system those parents who have stopped paying their child support. That is its most controversial feature and I will comment on that in some detail. 
At the moment we have about $1.1 billion in outstanding child support liability and $651 million of that sum is penalties that have been imposed on outstanding principal of around $450 million. The problem is that in many cases liable parents simply stop meeting their obligations because the penalties have become too great. The consequence of that is that no child support is payable and the children who should be benefiting from it suffer. So what this bill says in effect is that where parents seek to reactivate those outstanding payments there will be a provision for a write-off of certain of the debt obligations. The logic here is that it is far better to get those parents to pay something towards the welfare upbringing and upkeep of their children than the current arrangement where many are paying nothing. That was the major point of difference between the various parties as this bill progressed. 
But I want to make this point clear. None of the $651 million in outstanding interest and penalty payments will go to the children. That is revenue to the Crown if it is ever collected. The logic here is that it is far better to get the lion’s share of the $450 million that is outstanding child support going to the parents and the children rather than concentrating on the $651 million that will never be collected and will never go to the children anyway. 
That is the major change that this bill introduces. It is a significant step forward. It will mean a reduction in the level of outstanding child support as those penalties are written off. It will not be quite as generous as some have advocated for—that we are about to cut the debt in half. But the Inland Revenue Department will be monitoring these new arrangements and any that are entered into under this bill to ensure that the parents who commit to those arrangements meet their obligations and stay on track. The powers in this bill will not be exercised lightly. 
But I come back again to the point. At the moment the one group that suffers from the build-up of debt and the fact that people simply opt out of trying to meet their obligations is the children. Whatever one’s view of the dynamics of family break-up it is vital that the kids are the ones who get the recompense and the benefit and that is what this legislation seeks to achieve. 
The bill also contains some other measures relating to the overall stability of the child support system. It strengthens the Inland Revenue Department’s ability to investigate liable parents who deliberately structure their financial affairs to avoid paying the proper amount of child support and to get exemptions from the child support system. That has been a bone of contention for a long time. There is a sense of great injustice on the part of custodial parents that liable parents are structuring their affairs in such a way as to avoid their obligations. This bill gives the Inland Revenue Department greater authority and greater power in terms of investigating those situations so that those parents can be brought to book and ensure that their liabilities are met. 
I mentioned that the bill contains a couple of new exemptions. The first is a temporary one for young parents for whom it is still compulsory to be at school. It is clearly impractical to impose child support liabilities and responsibilities on children who are still at school and not in a position to be earning. The second exemption is a far more serious important and permanent one. It is for the victims of sexual offences when a child has been born as a result of a sexual crime. Again in those circumstances the imposition of a child support liability has been unjust and this matter will now be resolved by those provisions. 
The remaining measures in the bill are largely administrative in nature. They include new appeal rights following an administrative review and giving priority to payments owed to custodians over payments owed to the Crown. That will be a particularly important step forward also. 
 This bill was introduced some months ago. It has been considered carefully by the Social Services Committee and I pay tribute to the members of that committee for their consideration and for the amendments that they brought forward to further improve the bill as a result of their hearings. I also thank my officials in the Inland Revenue Department the draftspeople and those who have worked on the detail of this legislation and the members of the public and the various family specialists who took the time to make submissions to the select committee and to lobby individual members of the committee on this matter. 
Child support is a vexed and contentious issue and will remain so almost permanently. There will be refinements and changes over the years but the fundamental point will never be able to be escaped from: when parents become parents they accept—in the case of child support legislation until the child turns 19—ongoing responsibilities. Whatever the subsequent status of their relationship they must meet those responsibilities and they must honour their continuing obligations to their children. This bill is a practical step forward in terms of enabling the money to flow to the children who will benefit. Where parents do get behind with their payments the bill gives them the capacity to enter into repayment regimes which means they do not end up simply defaulting altogether. 
Finally I thank the members of the House who have contributed to the debate at various stages. I know that it has been a fraught debate but it has also been a useful one and I acknowledge the contributions made from all sides. I commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). I thank the Minister for his very gracious comments about the members of the Social Services Committee and the work we did on this bill. 
This is not a perfect bill; it is not even a slightly perfect bill. It does have some good points in it and I will just briefly mention a couple of those. One is the exemptions which the Minister has mentioned and the other is the ability of the Inland Revenue Department to look beyond the declared income of liable parents. The department will be able to look further into those parents’ assets and their ability to find or have access to money and that hopefully will indicate their real paying power. Certainly I am one of the many people in this House who come across parents who may have for example $150000 incomes but who have restructured their incomes so that in one particular case a parent is paying just $30 a week towards the upkeep of the child. I personally find that a disgrace and I am sure the Minister would agree. 
What we have though in this bill is something the National Party has spoken strongly against—that is the write-off of $600 million worth of penalties. We are against that for this reason. The Minister said he would rather have people pay to the children the $400 million they currently owe in direct child support and that the $600 million will really go only to the Crown—I think that was the general thrust of what he said. Well here is some news for the Minister. It is my child it is the children of other parents in this House and it is the children of other taxpayers who are already paying that bill. They are the ones who are paying up right now for the delinquent parents who do not take their obligations as parents seriously. 
I have had enough of people turning up and telling me about what good parents they are yet also telling me on the other hand why they should not be meeting any of the costs of their children. I think that those people need a fairly good swift kick—metaphorical of course. People who behave like that are a disgrace. When those parents are men they tell me they are men but frankly I do not think they are because men who have pride do not behave like that towards their children and towards the mothers of their children. 
Having heard the Minister talk about the debt and the amount owing in penalties I would also like to point out a very very salient fact. It is that 65000 of the parents who pay the liable parent contribution—that is about half of them—pay no more than $14 per week towards the upkeep of their own children. And that amount is not per child; it is for all their children. So for instance if they have six children with three different mothers they have to pay only $14 a week in total towards the upkeep of their children. As any responsible parent can tell us that amount is nothing towards the cost of bringing up a teenage child or a preschool child. It has nothing to do with the real costs of raising children. That is one of the reasons so many custodial parents who are good mums and dads have to say to their children that they are sorry but the children cannot play a particular sport because their parents do not have the money. That situation happens because of liable parents who pay only $14 a week. 
Then out of the 65000 men and women who are paying only $14 a week towards the upkeep of their own children 44339 are not even making that payment of $14 a week. They are in debt. Those are the people for whom we will be writing off penalties tonight because apparently they cannot meet a payment of $14 a week. If they cannot meet a payment of $14 a week what are they doing going around becoming fathers and mothers when they have so little sense of responsibility? I do not believe for a moment that those people cannot meet a payment of $14 a week. That is an absolute disgrace—but we sit here in this House saying that it will all be better because somehow those people will become more responsible towards their children. I do not believe for a moment that writing off the debt of the 44339 people who are not even paying their $14 a week towards the upkeep of their children—in one case 11 children—will mean that suddenly those people will have a conscience because we have said we will write off that penalty. That simply will not happen. 
I do not understand why a United Future Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne is saying that we will write this debt off—that we will get soft—when in his own party’s policies he has some good policies about child support. United Future members have said they will stop those delinquent parents from leaving New Zealand. We in the National Party agree with that. We say: “Good on you!” to those members. If we can stop people from not paying their parking fines as they leave the country then why do we give them a free wave through and say: “Goodbye haere ra and we will see you next time.” when they do not meet the cost of looking after their children—the pathetic cost of $14 a week? I do not understand why Peter Dunne is supporting that. I do not understand why this bill has the support of Peter Dunne and United Future members who have said very strongly and properly that they will look at the real costs of looking after children—at why it is an issue and at how we can actually get a real costing around that. Yet here we are tonight debating a bill where we will write off $600 million in unpaid debt. We are sending the message to those $14-a-week dads and mums that they do not need to bother too much because eventually the debt will become too high and we will write it off again. 
I am here to tell the House that the National Party will not support that sort of delinquency coming from parents—particularly when it comes from parents who should know better. There are parents with four or more children who are not even paying $14 a week towards their children—769 of them. There are 25768 parents who are not even meeting the payment of $14 a week for one child. And the message we send to the good mums and dads who meet their payments and to those who struggle to meet their payments but do their very best to do so is: “Well you are a bit of a mug aren’t you? Why are you doing that when your neighbour down the street doesn’t have to?”. 
Frankly I am so tired of listening to fathers’ groups that go around and protest outside MPs’ houses and judges’ houses and try to bully them. Well they have met their match in the National Party because we will not be bullied by that sort of behaviour. People in those groups tell us that they care about their children. If they cared so much about their children I ask why my child the children of every other parent in this House and the children of every other taxpayer are paying for those fathers’ children and going without the things they could have because there are parents who do not care about their own children.  
 I know there will be people who say some parents do care but simply cannot meet the cost of child support payments because often they have other children and new partnerships—multiple partnerships. Well I am here to tell those people that before they enter into new partnerships they should think about the children they have and they should think about the liability and responsibility they have. I make no excuses for those people. They come from all walks of life. It is utterly wrong for us to think that the only people who do not pay child support are those who do not earn much money; many people with a lot of money take great delight in hiding their income for that very reason. 
I am glad to hear that the Inland Revenue Department will be able to look at that. But the trouble is that at the select committee department officials told us in relation to a very worthy case we discussed with them that they could not necessarily determine whether they had even looked into the situation. So the problem I have with this legislation is that it is too soft on people it should not be soft on and it is just not good enough for the good custodial parents out there and the really good liable parents who pay their way and look after their children—who as much as they say they love them look after them that way. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I rise in support of the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). When parents separate and have to parent their children while funding two households and the additional costs incurred by access arrangements things can get pretty financially tight and be pretty emotionally stressful. At the Social Services Committee we heard from parents who felt they were anonymous funders liable and lonely. We heard from parents who received the minimum liable-parent payment from ex-partners who skilfully used business mechanisms to hide income. We heard from those who wanted both parents’ income taken into consideration and those who wanted calculations to more accurately reflect the time spent with both parents. We also heard from some who were burdened with both liable-parent payments and the costs of the new or reconstituted families they now supported. A number of submitters wanted evidence of how their liable-parent payments were spent with many believing they were funding their ex-partner’s exotic overseas holidays or drug habits rather than the children whom the money was meant for. At least one submitter wanted there to be an upper limit of liability for each child. 
But for me one submitter stood out from the rest. He was a dad who had never ever before considered making a submission to a select committee. He was so passionate about his experience and the conclusions he had come to regarding liable-parent payments that he was motivated to drive for hours to come to Wellington and appear before us. He is the custodial parent of his two girls. When his relationship disintegrated and battle lines were drawn he came to the realisation that no one was going to win in a war that was about to erupt over the care arrangements for his children—least of all the children. 
He proposed an alternative approach that involved him being the primary caregiver but with his children having both scheduled and spontaneous contact with their mother whenever they wanted. At his suggestion and by mutual agreement no money would change hands. His comment to the committee was: “I feel that if anyone should pay I should be paying my ex-wife for the privilege of being the primary caregiver.” His story serves to remind us that financial concerns should never be allowed to create barriers to a parent-child relationship and removing barriers is exactly what this bill is all about. However the liable-parent payment system is well overdue for a serious rethink. 
These are some of the questions I think need to be part of that consideration. Firstly does the Inland Revenue Department’s current formula for calculating payments undermine the opportunity for more equitable financial arrangements? Secondly when the Inland Revenue Department makes a mistake in its calculations how easy is it for the mistake to be remedied? We heard that it is very difficult. Thirdly should the cost of access be factored into the formula? Fourthly can we devise a more flexible sliding scale when counting the number of days children spend with each parent instead of the current 40 percent contact that is required when calculating liable-parent payments? Should both parents’ economic position be taken into consideration when support is calculated? Should custodial parents have to give some sort of account for how payments are used? Does the benefit system need to develop more flexibility so that more equitable parenting orders can be designed and implemented? 
These were all questions raised by submitters that were unable to be dealt with in this amendment bill. But United Future believes that we need to look closely at the reforms that are now present in other jurisdictions to see whether we can learn from others. We need not allow this amendment to be the end of the matter. 
Let us be very clear that parental responsibilities do not diminish because the parent to child relationship has disintegrated. Parental responsibilities do not reduce because two households are involved. Parental responsibility does not shrink in any way because parents have repartnered have reconstituted families or have had additional children to a new partner. Unless there are extenuating circumstances children have the right to have meaningful contact with both parents. We need to be mindful of all those considerations as we move beyond this amendment bill and start to look at how better we could be implementing a system that serves the interests of firstly the children but secondly of both parents. 
I do not think any of us having heard the evidence in the select committee would quibble about the fact that the current legislation as it stands even with this amendment bill which is an improvement serves the needs of the people it claims to. So United Future will support this amendment bill. 
I was very pleased to hear the Minister the Hon Peter Dunne talk about the discussions he had just last week in Australia with officials who have already engaged in a round of reforms on this matter. He has had serious discussion with them and United Future is intending on making sure that Cabinet seriously considers the need for some reforms that are long overdue in New Zealand. However we are very happy to support the third reading of this amendment bill. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I must confess to being a little sad to have to oppose a bill that purports to address the difficult area of ensuring there is adequate support for children in this country. This issue is at the very heart of National’s values and I know the belief is shared across the House that every child has the right to parental support and every child has the right to receive support from a mum and a dad no matter what the adults’ arrangements might be. I support the moves in the bill that will allow better scrutiny of liable parents. As Judy Turner said the Social Services Commitee heard some excellent submissions from people who came with stories that showed that the machinations of various liable parents meant that the only ones they were really hurting were their own children. I regret that the bill was not even able to expand its focus in order to look at the circumstances of both parents of a child or children. 
But the aim of the bill is to increase the amount of child support. Again that is an admirable aim and the Minister said tonight that the aim was to get more liable parents paying their child support. But the philosophy of this Government in backing this bill in the very narrow form that we have in front of us tonight is that if penalties are written off more people will pay their child support. We have $1.1 billion outstanding from liable parents. I was astounded to read figures obtained from the Minister and released yesterday by our welfare spokesperson Judith Collins. Those figures showed that the amount in arrears has more than doubled and the total amount owed including penalties has almost tripled since the year 2000. Yet the number of liable parents has not grown exponentially. 
So we have before us the example that the same numbers of parents more or less have not paid their child support and allowed their arrears to accumulate and this Government brings a bill before Parliament that says that if it wipes off those penalties and arrears then those people will start paying child support again. I cannot support that philosophy and throughout the process I asked for that to be substantiated by officials and by Government members on the Social Services Committee. They have been unable to do so. In this third reading before the final passing of the bill I hope Government members will stand and explain that philosophy to the House. How does it work when we have people who are deliberately not paying their child support and are told not to worry about the debt? How does it encourage them to pay child support when the Government is saying they do not need to worry about the debt because the Government will write it off? 
One of the reasons the Government has given is that the penalties become so overwhelming that people just cannot see a way out of the situation so they skedaddle to Australia. The chartered accountants came before the select committee with a very practical piece of advice as to how we could address the accumulation of those penalties. They suggested that instead of a rate of 2 percent accumulating on those arrears we reduce it to 1 percent. The officials rejected that advice. But I thought it made sense because there was still a punishment for not paying child support but not at such a rate that huge amounts of arrears were accumulating. Maybe I am cynical but I have to question whether the advice was rejected because 51 percent of the money paid in arrears and penalties on arrears is now kept by the Government and only 49 percent makes its way back to custodial parents whereas in 2003 70 percent was paid back to custodial parents and only 30 percent was kept by the Government. 
There is very good evidence to show—and as I said the figures that Judith Collins released yesterday also show—that more and more liable parents are ducking their responsibilities and refusing to pay. Of course we know that the amount owed by expats in Australia has ballooned to $280 million - odd. That figure is four times what was owed in 2003. Yet the Government brings in a bill to try to get those parents to pay what they owe which does not really address that issue in any practical way other than saying they do not have to worry about paying the penalty and debt they owe because the Government will write it off on their behalf. 
Finally I echo what Judy Turner said in her speech. There was a wide range of submissions and some excellent submissions made to the committee. The most disappointing thing for me during the passage of the bill has been that this Government has had 7 years to address some of the issues around the Child Support Act 1991. Some of the issues were laid before the select committee in great detail and all the Government has done is alter the maximum and minimum amounts of income to set the formula in 2001 and not much else. A huge opportunity has been missed. 
The committee heard about some excellent ideas being used throughout the world because other countries are grappling with ways to ensure that parents take responsibility and make provision for their children. In Australia they have shared parenting arrangements. In Canada they have a system that treats all parents quite consistently. We heard about shared custody and the “cliff-face” of a child support system where there is a 40 percent cut-off that causes parents to fight over how many nights they can each have the children because there is a huge financial advantage if one goes beyond that 40 percent. It takes the focus away from the welfare upbringing and support of the child and puts it on the issue of who will pay what money. 
We heard from chartered accountants that if we were really trying to dig into some of these very clever ways that some liable parents use to get around the law we would use the adjudication unit of the Inland Revenue Department. They said it was an underused body and has a depth of commercial experience. The unit is used to dealing with the sorts of trusts and financial set-ups that people use to hide their assets. We also heard—mainly from fathers—about the agony of being charged with liability for children who were not theirs. 
I am sad to be opposing the bill but it just does not cut the mustard. A huge opportunity was missed to explore in greater depth that whole area of child support. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). New Zealand First believes that this bill is a genuine attempt to take some action on the very contentious and difficult issue of child support. It would have been totally irresponsible to ignore the situation we currently have in New Zealand and do absolutely nothing. The issue has needed to be addressed for quite some time and all parties in the House have agreed on this. Inaction is not the answer it never has been the answer and it never will be the answer. 
We have heard from various speakers that one of the purposes of the bill is to improve compliance with financial support obligations so that more children receive the financial support to which they are entitled. In this House we know that children’s needs are many and usually very expensive. It is important today to be part of the in-crowd and that usually involves having a cellphone the label gear and even an iPod. We know that peer pressure can be particularly intense for teenagers. 
The bill proposes writing off the debt penalties—not the arrears—as a part incentive for parents to try to reactivate their payments. As we have all heard during the passage of this bill through the House this measure will provide only limited relief. We are very aware there is a provision for reviewing the measure if liable parents default on their obligations. We must say that the penalties should never go towards the child but elsewhere in the system if they are indeed collected. It is an unrealistic situation when interest that parents owe is larger than the actual principal. 
This bill may hopefully encourage some lapsed parents to re-enter the system because we all know that children need the financial support of both of their parents. It is absolutely essential to reconnect parents with their financial responsibilities. One of the earlier speakers Judith Collins said there were 44339 parents who needed to be reconnected in this respect. Non-payment of child support is a very serious issue and unfortunately the losers are always the children. 
We are very aware that the child support money owed by parents overseas has nearly quadrupled in the last 3 years. Some of this increase will undoubtedly be debt penalties. We all know that debt penalties rise rapidly. If this is an impediment it needs to be managed so that more parents can re-enter the system. New Zealand First believes that it is far better to do something about debt penalties and try to manage this whole situation. We will be very interested to hear further from Peter Dunne about his Australian visit. 
We want the collection rate for child support to be far higher than it is at present. It is essential that as far as possible a parent’s child support too accurately reflects that person’s ability to provide financial assistance for his or her children. We are very aware—and we are very pleased to have had it addressed in this bill—that some irresponsible parents hide their assets in a trust so that lo and behold they do not have to pay a reasonable contribution towards their child or their children. But again it is the children who suffer. They are unfortunately the innocent victims and it should not happen. 
On the other hand I know of a liable mother who provides so much for her absent children that she is forced to live on the breadline. Life would be far easier for her if she took other courses of action. But she is determined not to do so and she will continue to make the compulsory and extra voluntary payments for her children. So we are pleased to see some provision in this bill to administratively review the level of child support where there is reason to believe that the true level of a parent’s funds has been hidden. 
We know that children are our future and that they deserve the support of both parents. It is a serious and important issue and measures have needed to be put in place for a very long time. We need to ensure that there is greater compliance for parents and that they meet their financial contributions. 
We note too that the bill proposes a temporary exemption for young parents for whom it is compulsory to be at school. If those parents take on some part-time or casual work they will be required to make some contribution towards the support of their child. Again this is another challenge that the bill deals with. We must say that this bill is dealing with families at a very difficult and critical point in their lives. It is a very hard problem to resolve. We are aware too that this bill might not provide the perfect solution but at least it is a part solution. We must move forward with solutions on this issue of child support. 
The message from this Parliament tonight is very clear: parents are responsible for the financial welfare of their children and any incentive that can be used to encourage lapsed parents to follow through with their responsibilities must be supported. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). I am well aware that this bill does not provide the wide range of improvements to New Zealand’s child support regime that many of the people who came to make submissions to us at the Social Services Committee wanted. However it makes some limited reforms to the system which we think are desirable. 
Those reforms include working to improve the level of compliance with obligations so that more children receive the support to which they are entitled. They also include new provisions for the write-off of penalty debt extending the existing provisions for ensuring that a parent’s liability accurately reflects that parent’s ability to provide help for his or her children and also putting into place a new appeal right that will look to provide greater fairness between applicants and respondents subsequent to an administrative review. The bill also adds to the list of those exempt from paying child support by including liable parents under 16 years of age—and unfortunately we still have a number of those—victims of sex offences and also people who are in prison or in hospital long term within certain income limits. All of those changes seem sensible and deal with the practicalities of implementing earlier versions of the Child Support Act 1991. 
During the consideration of the bill I was particularly interested in issues around the extension of the ability of the Inland Revenue Department to inquire into the validity of exemptions or determinations made especially in situations where for example it is suspected that the liable parent’s real income and/or assets are much higher than stated. I think everyone in the House—and we have heard a number of speeches on this already—is probably aware of circumstances where people have dodged or continue to dodge their responsibilities to their children through the use of various mechanisms totally geared towards hiding their true worth. 
Although I have a lot of sympathy for the predicament some liable parents find themselves in I do not extend that to those who adopt legal and financial structures that reduce or hide—often completely or massively—their visible taxable income thereby defeating the intent of the Act and I think the moral purpose that most of us in this House have that parents should take some responsibility within their means for the children that they produce. The new measures put in place by this bill will enable the Inland Revenue Department to initiate a process that looks into the reality of someone’s earning capacity and his or her property and financial resources. 
I realise that many submitters will be unhappy with this bill because it has not dealt with their deep and genuinely felt concerns about some of the problems around the way our child support system operates in practice especially when there is a situation where parents share the care of a child. However in fact many of the submissions covered matters that fall outside the scope of this amending bill—for example matters in relation to the way contribution payments are assessed and what should happen to liable parents who find themselves in real hardship. Those and other issues raised by submitters are worthy of ongoing debate and review. 
I think there are certain areas of our child support law that do need further amendment. For example I have a great deal of sympathy for those who argue that there should be a lot more flexibility reality and fairness in how contributions are calculated in some specific situations. Those matters however are complex and deserve attention in their own right. We were not able to do that within the consideration process of this particular bill at the select committee. The Green Party will be interested to hear whether the Government has any intention to further review and amend the child support framework at any time in the near future. 
Meanwhile we are happy to support the bill in front of us tonight. We will be voting for it accordingly. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou katoa i te Whare. As we consider the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) on this date I am mindful that today is also the 29th anniversary of the death of Steve Biko a young black African man killed by the apartheid regime of South Africa for daring to oppose the racism in his world. 
As we consider this bill on this day I also take this opportunity to honour our kaumatua from the far north Mr Pia Ihaka from Te Kao a man for whom there was only one tribe—Te Aupouri—and to whom all other tribes in the north were mere subtribes. I honour him for his dedication to te reo Maori and for his commitment to ensuring that any child under his direction achieved a level of excellence at Nga Manu Korero—the national Maori speech competition. As we consider this Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) on this day I mention Nga Manu Korero because as we speak the nation celebrates the culmination of months of effort from hundreds of Maori youth at the 2006 Nga Manu Korero competitions currently being held in Opunake—the 41st time that this premier event has been held. 
The very first winner of the Korimako Trophy in 1965 was a young woman from St Mary’s College in Ponsonby one Donna Awatere. In 1973 that award was won by a lawyer Prue Kapua; in 1979 by print and television reporter Aroaro Hond; by broadcaster Julian Wilcox in 1993; and by Maori Party list candidate Tell Kuka in 2002. The Pei Te Hurinui Jones Trophy for the senior Maori section has been won by such luminaries as health specialist Mauriora Kingi in 1979 the writer of the All Black haka “Kapa o Pango” Derek Lardelli in 1980 and the internationally renowned musician of “What’s the Time Mr Wolf” Ruia Aperahama in 1987. 
As we consider this legislation on this day I mention Nga Manu Korero because those young people could teach this House about the quality and nature of robust but respectful speech-making. I also mention these examples of excellence because when we consider issues affecting our children we need to be guided by a sense of achievement and excellence not just by financial return. I note that 300000 children in Aotearoa are being supported by child support payments and I have no doubt that many such children will be found amongst the contestants in the audience at Nga Manu Korero. 
That is an important note in the context of this bill because many of the submissions received tended to reduce the concept of child raising to a formula based purely on money alone. One submission was about the cost of supporting a child. Another said that child support was a matter for parents to settle not the Inland Revenue Department—although given the massive arrears that sounds more than a little unrealistic. Some submissions were depressing—men bitching about being ripped off by money-grabbing women and women moaning about being lied to by men who said they had no money. Thankfully there were some submissions that focused on the well-being of children as a priority over personal and departmental finances. 
The Maori Party supports any efforts to ensure that parents accept their financial responsibilities to their children. We are talking about a lot of parents—more than 142000 in 2005. So we support the intention of this bill to ensure that liable parents meet their obligations. We also note that changes are being proposed in this bill to make it easier for liable parents to think of rebuilding their relationships and even rebuilding their whanau. If that means that 142000 families may benefit from strengthening connections and responsibility then we support that idea as well. 
We also welcome the number of options proposed to get lapsed payers back into the system without forcing them into greater debt. One of the biggest obstacles to this has been the harsh penalties for late payment of child support. We note that it is only now that the Government is putting up a bill to deal with what has blown out to be more than $1 billion of debt. We support the proposal to address the penalties that erupt as soon as a parent slips up on child support payments. We also note that arrears of 37 percent in the first year and 29 percent in following years create an enormous debt so it makes sense to encourage people to pay up. 
We welcome the suggestion to write off penalties as an incentive for people to restart payments. We note that the Inland Revenue Department takes a case by case look at writing off penalty debt. That is a concern to us because unless the criteria are clear we find that Maori people often suffer when things are left in the hands of departmental discretion. We also hope that the department has clear criteria when it comes to looking at cases where liable parents may not be paying what they are supposed to be paying. We make no fuss about the right to investigate because as long as there is a system someone will try to rip it off but we will support initiatives where the rules are clear and the emphasis is on improving relationships rather than snooping on people who are poor. 
The Maori Party supports the proposed exemptions from liability for child support for teenagers under the age of 16 and for victims of sex offences. Allowing young people to put off child support payments until they can complete their education will help them as people help them as parents and help them understand their need to pay into the child support scheme. We also support the idea that victims not be further victimised by having to pay child support for children born as the result of sex crimes. While we are talking about exemptions I would like to remind the House of a case in Waipukurau in 1995 where the mother of a boy born in 1984 and whangai-ed at birth to an auntie applied to stop her child support. The boy had been living for 11 years as a whangai with everyone’s support before the Department of Social Welfare stepped in at the last minute and demanded a liable parent contribution from the birth mother. The mother’s lawyer argued that the provisions did not apply because the child had been adopted and that Maori customary adoptions were affirmed in legislation. Fortunately the court threw out the department’s case saying that the department’s actions defied common sense. But although the precedent has been set in the court I note that it has not been properly addressed in this legislation. 
The Maori Party is keen to support any proposal that will harness the strengths and talents of our whanau. We will support any policy that encourages whanau development and that encourages parents to support their children whether through the practice of whangai or through the payment of child support. 
I began my korero with some of the names of the winners of the Nga Manu Korero. I forgot one name and in the interests of cross-party support for this bill I would like to advise the House that the winner of the Nga Kete o te Matauranga trophy for 2003 and 2004 for best female speaker in the senior Maori section was none other than the niece of Shane Jones Miss Ngahuia Harawira. 
My hope for Aotearoa and the rationale for the Maori Party support for this bill is that our actions are driven by a desire for excellence for our children a willingness to support our children a love of the gift of children and our love for children themselves. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a short call in support of the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). It has been a long road to this point but I believe a worthwhile one. This bill will assist children in need and that is the bottom line. As we have heard from many speakers too many children in New Zealand are deprived of adequate support by the unwillingness or inability of parents to meet their obligations under the Child Support Act. By amending that Act this bill will allow incentives to be put in place that will encourage the repayment of debt and ensure that more resources get to the children who need them. 
During the various stages of this bill and at the Social Services Committee there has been discussion about whether the bill would set up an inappropriate “get out of jail free” card for delinquent dads. On balance I do not believe that that will be the case and this is why. In the first instance the bill does not allow for the underlying debt to be forgiven. In the second instance no penalties are remitted unless and until a liable parent maintains his or her agreement to repay the base debt as per the undertakings he or she has given to the Inland Revenue Department. In the third instance the initial penalties cannot be remitted under any circumstances and the remission of other penalties is on a pro rata basis. Why do I go into that technical detail? I think it proves that this bill maintains discipline on liable parents throughout the process. It also provides some positive incentives for them to meet their obligations—and that is important. 
I commend the work of the select committee for the attention it has paid to the bill. I know that members from right across the House have taken a close interest in it because it concerns a subject that touches the hearts of many New Zealanders. In that context it is also appropriate for us to acknowledge the difficulty of legislating in this area whatever strategy is adopted because the law is interacting with New Zealand families at a time when by definition those families are in crisis—at a time when a separation has occurred often very recently and with all the emotional trauma and dislocation that that brings. 
Since it was first enacted the law has sought to balance the rights and obligations of custodial and liable parents. It contains a repayment formula that is objective and fair and it quite rightly provides for the imposition of penalties when debt accumulates. The other reason why this bill is before us today is that it is common ground in this House that the debt mountain has become too large. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Under Labour. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I think under both parties. It is important not to make this issue a partisan football; we must try to solve the problem in the interests of New Zealand children. That is what the majority of parties in this House are seeking to do. 
We will get that debt mountain down by acknowledging that some people have got so far behind and out of the system that it is quite impossible for them to get back. I am reminded of a constituent I mentioned in an earlier stage of this debate who had accumulated several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of debt mostly in penalties on an income of around $30000 before tax. Without this bill there is no financial way back for someone who gets to that point. And what does that mean? The human cost of that is that the father is on the run there is no contact with the children and beyond the cost being a financial deficit for the family it is a human and emotional deficit as well. 
None of that means we are being soft on delinquent dads or liable parents. As I said earlier on that note there will always be penalties payable as well as all of the base debt payable. This bill seeks to balance the need for repayment of debt the need to provide an incentive and the need to maintain some sanctions. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the very important Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). As my colleague Anne Tolley pointed out this bill is a missed opportunity on the part of the Labour Government. Indeed this is a very serious bill. If we look at its purpose we see it is to improve the level of compliance with financial support obligations so that more children receive the financial support to which they are entitled. Yet here we have a Labour Minister saying that the debt mountain has got out of control. That just has to be a minimising of the scandalous fact that in the last 6 years under the Labour Government that amount has trebled. It is up by 300 percent; it has now reached $1.1 billion. In fact in 2003—only 3 years ago—the debt owed by liable New Zealand parents resident in Australia was $73 million; now it is $280 million. It has quadrupled under the Labour Government which just has not been watching what is happening with regard to a very very important issue for children. 
The fundamental reason for the Child Support Act 1991 is to ensure parental responsibility for the support of those parents’ children. We in National believe that must be clear. There must be clear signals to responsible parents and there must be equally clear signals to irresponsible parents. As many of my colleagues have pointed out this bill waives $650 million. That is what the Labour Government is prepared to do. The signal that sends to parents is that the Labour Government does not care about the debt. In fact it basically encourages liable parents to be irresponsible and that is of great concern. 
Labour Government members over there on the other side of the Chamber are looking pretty tired and tawdry and that is no wonder because they have let this mountainous debt accumulate over the last 6 years. They set out to be the Government that was supposed to be accountable but here we find that back in 2000 the debt was $380 million and now it is $1.1 billion. There are $700 million of arrears. Yet the Minister of Revenue says that if we did get that money back it would not go to the children. Of course the New Zealand taxpayer should have that money back. This Government is just going to write it off. That is what the Labour Government is doing—writing off $651 million in arrears that hard-working taxpayers have been required to give. We have seen on the Government’s watch a considerable laxity in this very important area. 
Minister Cunliffe said child support is a very hard problem and the Government is honestly trying to do something about it but the solution is not perfect. Well that has to be the understatement of 2006. More important is what some of the technicians say about the bill. We heard from the New Zealand Law Society from Judge Boshier and various other judges and from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand. All of them were deeply critical of the technical aspects of the bill and really felt that the Labour Government had not looked at the details in a practical way. That is what has personified or characterised this Government over the past 6 years. It is fine in terms of talk and high in rhetoric but it is unable to really look at the practical aspects of legislation. 
I have heard about that issue from liable parents right throughout New Zealand who have said that when the collection agencies have come to them they have been given such confusing information that it has driven them to despair. One particular individual said to me that on one day he was sent a bill for $200000. He rang up on the next day and was told that it was $3000. He rang up and said that was great but the call operator said that the case manager had gone on holiday and he would have to go to the next call centre which was in Whangarei. He called that call centre and was told it did not know about his case and he would have to try up in Northland or somewhere like that. The system is a shambles under this Labour Government and that is absolutely a characteristic of it. 
I will look at the detail of the bill. This is what Judge Boshier had to say about one of the most important parts of the bill new Part 6B. He said the purpose of that provision was to extend existing provisions for ensuring that “parents’ child support liability accurately reflects their ability to provide financial assistance for children”. I do not consider those provisions will be effective. I recall at the time the Trapski review was carried out in 1994 issues were raised about the ability of the court to be able to set aside strategies or devices such as family trusts and companies which enabled a liable parent to reduce their child support obligations. Following that Judge Boshier received a letter from Judge Walsh in which he said: “After reflecting on the whole scheme of Part 6B I am left with the impression it will be effectively a toothless provision.” 
So here in this bill the opportunity has been lost by this Labour Government which did not bother to get into the very important details of child support. After 6 years it has let this debt mountain increase threefold—300 percent—and fourfold in Australia. Yet when it comes to the machinery of the legislation Judge Boshier and Judge Walsh say that the provision is effectively toothless. That view has come from one of the highest judges in the land. 
What does the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand say? It says regarding determinations initiated by the Inland Revenue Department: “In any event we have serious misgivings with the proposal as currently drafted in the Bill; both with the law and the practical and administrative implications. It is too wide provides no objective test does not clearly specify the purpose and provides inadequate controls and safeguards.” That is from the Institute of Chartered Accountants and that is the reason why the Labour Government has let this debt mountain get away on it. It wants to waive $600 million and not think about sorting out the machinery of governance and the organisation of debt collection in this country. It just wants to waive the money and not go and do the hard practical work. 
So when we hear Minister Cunliffe say that child support is a very hard problem and that Labour is honestly trying to do something about it but the solution is not perfect that has to be the understatement of 2006. This Labour Government needs to clean up its own administration. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: And its act. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Yes—and its act. There is a certain irony about this bill coming at a time when Labour is refusing to pay $500000 that it spent on a pledge card. It is refusing to pay its bills and it is also waiving $600 million of taxpayers’ money. 
This bill unfortunately is a huge missed opportunity for the children of New Zealand. We in National are very sad not to be able to support it. The reason we are not supporting it is that the lazy Labour Government does not pay attention to detail when it comes to children. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a third time. 
Standards and Conformance Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Standards Act 1988 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 During the second reading of the bill I raised some quite serious concerns about the mess we have within the New Zealand building industry. In particular I drew attention to the fiasco we have whereby the standards committee is saying there is one set of rules and the Department of Building and Housing is saying there is another. I also drew the attention of the House to the view of certified builders that this level of confusion is unprecedented. We have had the whole debacle of leaky homes for over 4 years now and it is still not clear for builders and for designers as to what the standards for building houses are. 
My point in respect of this bill is that Standards New Zealand was created in the aftermath of the Napier earthquake quite specifically to deal with the issue of building standards. It is an organisation that has actually done a very good job over a very long time. I think some of the changes that the last Labour Government made in 1988 at the height of Rogernomics were actually counter-productive to Standards New Zealand. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Look who is talking! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Chris Carter who was the Minister for Building Issues—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Carter you can take a call if you wish. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member opposite made an accusation that was quite out of order. I suggest that you bring him to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Carter I thought you would have taken what I said to you just before as a warning. Would you stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The difficulty for the Minister Mr Carter is that he turned a blind eye— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: He’s telling porkies. He’s been caught with $15 million. He’s been caught with it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Now the member has interjected. The fact is that unlike Mr Carter who is not prepared to stand— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Or was it $18 million? Sorry I was mistaken; it is $18 million not $15 million. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Both figures are incorrect. The Minister does not know. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Carter those are not objections so you will cease please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I make no apologies for standing up for the rights of New Zealanders to have their homes properly constructed. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have just asked the member to withdraw and apologise and he has just repeated exactly the same offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not think he will do it again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Do members know how many Ministers for building and housing we have had? 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How many? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We have had seven Ministers. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: None of them have been sued though have they. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister has already said that I may get sued. I tell Mr Carter that I make absolutely no apologies for standing up— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Carter I have asked you a number of times to cease. I ask your whip to tell you to cease and that will be the end of it. I do not want to hear you again during Dr Smith’s speech. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The part I find interesting is that I am being sued by an American corporation. Is this not the same Labour Party that somehow believes National members are all beholden to Americans? There seems to be a bit of a dichotomy because if we stand up for New Zealand consumers and say: “Come on guys treat the timber according to the New Zealand standard.” the Minister is silent. He was not prepared to do anything about it and I was prepared to put on the public record genuine concerns held by myself and New Zealand scientists about the standard of timber treatment. 
I come back to the issues for the Minister in the chair Lianne Dalziel in terms of this bill. What is the current requirement for treating timber? As I pointed out we had this fiasco whereby the Minister said that standards in New Zealand would be set by a very thorough process—by consensus or by an 80 percent vote. In June there was a vote and two members voted against the watering down of timber treatment standards. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Then what happened? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The two members were sacked. It was put to the vote again in August and can members guess what happened? There was consensus. So the standard has been changed. I ask the Minister whether that is acceptable. We are putting all sorts of ethical standards in this bill. Sacking members of a committee including a scientist from AgriQuality a State-owned enterprise because they did not agree seems to me to be somewhat out of step with what I would think was ethical conduct. 
I put these questions to the Minister before and she was absolutely silent. She is the Minister in charge of Standards New Zealand and I have a very simple question for her: can she explain why those two members were sacked from the committee? We know that they were the only two who voted against the change. Imagine if we had that in Parliament; that if one votes against the Government off one goes—on your bike! That seems to me to be the style of ethical conduct we will have. The Minister has brought a bill to Parliament to introduce ethical standards into the standard-setting process but she is silent when those sorts of shenanigans go on within Standards New Zealand. 
 I challenge the Minister to please provide some answers. What standard is acceptable today for building houses? That question is pretty important to a whole lot of New Zealanders out there. Tens of thousands of houses are being built and people do not know what the standard is because the Government has not got its act together. Question No. 2: can the Minister tell us why two members of the standards committee—the two who happened to vote against the watering down of the timber treatment standard—were suddenly fired? Was it as everybody within the industry knows because of commercial pressure from some companies that wanted them out? We deserve an answer from the Minister. Can she tell us why those two members were fired from the committee? More important I would like to know from the Minister how in terms of this bill she can talk about introducing ethical standards when at the very same time she the Minister in charge of Standards New Zealand is silent when these sorts of difficulties are going on and when these sorts of Crown agencies are involved in conduct that is hardly becoming in terms of increasing confidence in the most important area of Standards New Zealand’s work—that is building standards. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am actually surprised because the Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel is well known for being upfront in taking calls. She is about the only Minister on the Labour front bench who is prepared to answer questions and I think that the two questions posed by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith are very good ones. I am concerned about the fact that in June two members of the Standards Committee were sacked simply because they voted against lowering the standard for building materials. My concern extends then to what would happen to the Auditor-General who actually raised the issue that the Labour Party used taxpayers’ money illegally in the election campaign. I am coming back to the bill but there is a concern if appointed members of a committee get sacked simply because they want to maintain a higher standard about who then is left to hold the Government to account. 
I also want to pose some more questions relating to Part 1. This part increases the functions of the Standards Council to include the development of standards that promote social responsibility. The term “social responsibility” is very subjective and I have a horrible vision of our officials from the Ministry of Economic Development holding hands with international delegates and conducting strategic conversations in order to develop a social responsibility standard. 
I have suddenly found in the last financial review of the Ministry of Economic Development that there is a buzzword and a communication strategy that apparently each Government department is conducting—that is not just a conversation but a strategic conversation. I was very interested in this and I asked the officials what “strategic conversation” means. It is a term that is actually contained in the objectives of a Government department’s mission statement. Apparently the Ministry of Social Development states in regard to “strategic conversation”: “A less technically sophisticated evaluation that can add more to the strategic conversation is of more value than a technically sophisticated evaluation whose results may distract from ensuring the most strategic use of resources.” 
I ask my colleagues whether any of them understands that statement. I thought that another Government department might be able to enlighten me as to this term “strategic conversation”. The Ministry of Economic Development states: “Our attention has turned to improving the quality of strategic thinking and conversation. As part of this we have put more focus on synthesising research to distil the implications for our strategy.” I ask my good colleagues on my side of the Chamber whether any of them is any the wiser about the term strategic conversation. 
We are going to elevate strategic conversation to an international level in order to develop standards that will promote social responsibility. I would like the Minister to take a call and say how much more compliance implication that would impose on business or on anybody trying to adhere to or develop eventually a social responsibility standard. The Minister is the one who claimed sometime in June that she was conducting a dynamic review on the compliance burden particularly horizontal vertical strategic—who knows? She is doing this particularly for small-business people and I want to know what the implication of these new objectives will be for the Standards Council. What sort of a standard will be developed to promote this so-called social responsibility issue? 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 One may be forgiven for giving this bill a somewhat cursory glance and thinking that yes it is combining the functions of two bodies that sounds OK. It is combining the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council and is intended to align the functions of both with international standards. That sounds great it should therefore save some costs. It should be a good bill. However there is a big “but”. 
I divert for a minute to mention something that has not been mentioned in the commentary on the bill. It seems to be international practice these days that only one body in any country has the function of registering certification bodies and that is fine. In New Zealand it is this great thing called theJoint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. Whilst it is possibly not technically within the scope of this bill I do raise the issue of whether New Zealand is losing its sovereignty to this joint body. How answerable is the joint body to New Zealand courts? I would like the Minister in the chair Lianne Dalziel to address that issue because I think it is one that is hugely fundamental to our constitutional law. As an international regulator how many local controls would it need to comply with? Decisions about using world guidelines for standards will not be made by New Zealand at all but by this joint body on which we have two representatives. 
The other question I would like the Minister to answer is how Parliament if it so wanted could actually modify the rules of this joint agency. Does it in fact have the power to do so? I think we are at very real risk of ceding our sovereignty to this joint trans-Tasman agency and I take that as a very very serious constitutional issue. 
Leaving aside that wider issue—because it might be too intellectual for the other side—and coming back to the bill I point out that the popular rhetoric seems to be about reducing compliance costs and making it easier for businesses to do business. So it would seem obvious that some analysis of those consequential compliance costs might have been completed before launching into this bill. What are the fiscal implications of the bill? We are told that the implications of this bill are “just too difficult to assess”. I would have to say that for all the talk and rhetoric about social responsibility this bill has every chance of being yet another irresponsible bill with yet more unintended consequences. There has been no disclosure. 
In fact there is no idea of what the compliance costs resulting from this bill will actually be. The compliance cost statement in relation to the bill even identifies that compliance costs will be incurred because of these two accreditation bodies being reduced to one. But as there may be some confusion in the market because of these changes “It is not possible to quantify the size of the compliance costs.” and we are expected just to accept that. Well I do not think so. 
I said before that this could have been a good bill. It is important that other countries have confidence in our system for the accreditation of those certification bodies. We place a heavy reliance on our trade exports and wishy-washy unreliable and inconsistent standards are certainly to be avoided. But this potentially good bill has been spoilt by the Government sneaking in a couple of new objectives of the Standards Council. 
Just to go back in time I tell members that under the existing Standards Act the primary functions of the council—which are quite sensible—are to develop standards to promote encourage and facilitate the use of standards in New Zealand and to improve the quality of goods or services having regard to economy in their production or supply. We cannot argue with that. They are also to promote standardisation in industry trade or commerce—we cannot argue with that—and to encourage and facilitate industrial development trade or commerce which we cannot argue with either or to promote public or occupational safety health or welfare. That all makes some sense because at the end of the day we must acknowledge the importance of objective standards and standardisation of standards with our trans-Tasman neighbour Australia. Nobody wants to compromise those standards but this bill just had to go that sneaky bit further. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Standards and Conformance Bill and to bring to the Minister’s attention for starters—I am sure she is well aware of the Ministry of Economic Development’s website—the Government’s objectives for conformance and standards. I will not ask her to recite them off pat because that would be unfair of course but I will remind her of what those objectives are. I will read through them. First and foremost is facilitating domestic and international trade. Second is minimising risks to health safety and the environment. The third is facilitating innovation and economic development as part of the economic transformation equation that our Prime Minister is banging the table about at the moment while we are still going backwards on economic growth. The fourth is reducing compliance costs. That is what it says there; it is all about reducing compliance costs. 
So I imagine that is why the Minister is planning a trip in February of 2007 to the ISO Working Group on Social Responsibility which will take place in February 2007 in Sydney Australia. I ask the Minister whether she will be attending that conference. I do not think she is sure about that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: She doesn’t know. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: She does not know. Well I would like her to find out a little bit more—being the Minister of Commerce responsible for commerce and standards and for introducing a new standard that is all about minimising environmental risks and promoting social responsibility into the Standards Act 1988. Yet the Minister does not even know about a conference that will be taking place in Sydney in February 2007 on the ISO Working Group on Social Responsibility. Now we might ask ourselves why the heck might we have a conference on that. Well I have to say that I would not be wasting my time in attending it myself. But it is the very reason this whole change in the Act is coming about and the Minister is not even aware of it. 
I want to talk to her about why it is coming through because there is a hierarchy of standards that come about throughout the world. Firstly there are international standards then standards set on an Australasian level. Then regional and local standards are set—all done under the Standards Act of 1988. Just for the Minister’s reference—this evening is probably a bit of an education for her—I tell her that the Standards Act was originally put in to consolidate and amend the law relating to standards and to repeal the original Standards Act of 1965. 
A body was set up called the Standards Council I say for the Minister’s benefit and there are 12 members on the council. She may not be aware either that the membership of that council is made up of bodies as august as the New Zealand Institute of Architects Inc. Was she aware of that? It includes the National Council of Women—it is there to help set standards and be part of it—and other august bodies like Local Government New Zealand. So that standards organisation is there to set standards for New Zealand and now we are seeing this amending legislation being brought in to add to the functions of the council. The primary functions of the council should be to develop standards and to promote encourage and facilitate the use of standards in New Zealand. Let us go back to the Ministry of Economic Development website and I ask what those objectives were—to facilitate innovation in economic development and to reduce compliance costs. 
I want to know how the heck minimising of environmental risk and promoting social responsibility will have any impact whatsoever on increasing economic transformation for this country. That is the question the Minister should be asking because creating growth should be what it is all about. I will tell members why we have this—this whole thing comes from a conference that will end up in Sydney next year dealing with the international standard ISO 26000 on social responsibility. 
Let me tell the Minister a little about ISO 26000 which is the international standard that has been set on a worldwide basis for social responsibility. The interesting thing about that standard is that it will not include requirements and thus will be a certification standard. So it will be optional. We are going through this whole process of amending legislation to make two changes to the Standards Act—for the minimisation of environmental risk and the promotion of social responsibility—all for ISO 26000 which will be optional. That is unbelievable. How will it enhance economic transformation in this country? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to have some input into this debate. I am particularly concerned when I look at this bill; I am really delighted that my colleagues and National are opposing it. I think that it is quite scary when we see Labour making such amendments in legislation. When we look at Part 1 “clause 7: “Functions of council” we see that subclause (4) states: “Section 10(2)(h) of the principal act is amended by inserting after the word “standards” the words “and other specifications”. To me that is broad in the extreme. What does “and other specifications” really say about what we can expect in the future? 
I am mindful of a recent press release about cars. If one also takes into account environmental and social responsibility where will the emphasis be? If we look at the latest press release about small cars being death traps we see that it says that smaller vehicles are built as economically as possible and the biggest economy is attached to safety features. So yes small vehicles have a saving in terms of fuel consumption but safety features are sacrificed as a consequence. So will we support small vehicles because they seem to be more environmentally friendly or will we oppose small vehicles because they have a much greater personal risk to people’s health and safety? The article goes on to say that there are a lot of problems in providing adequate performance protection. If specifications or standards are being set which one will take precedence—the environment or people’s safety? Who will weigh up those sorts of issues when it comes to setting standards or indeed specifications? Here “specifications” are a pretty broad brush and can be applied to just about anything. 
When I was listening to my colleague Mr Chris Tremain earlier I was very impressed with his presentation and with his reacquainting us with the intention of standards—that is to facilitate domestic and international trade. I would say that the Government has failed miserably in that regard when one thinks about honey imports and the standards it applies there. The Government is putting our whole agricultural and horticultural sector at risk because those standards are not robust. The Government acknowledges that they are not yet it has taken that on board and still made the decision to allow honey to be imported into New Zealand that is not heated to its optimum in order to ensure we do not have diseases coming into this country and putting the rest of our horticultural and agricultural sectors at risk. 
This bill was supposed to enhance public confidence in the setting of standards but in no way does it do that. What else does this bill say? Clause 7(5) states: “Section 10(2)(i) of the principal Act is amended by adding the words ‘or that the Minister may direct it to perform in accordance with section 112 of the Crown Entities Act 2004’.” What does section 112 state? It states: “If an Act or a Crown entity company’s constitution gives the responsible Minister power to add to the functions of a Crown entity the Minister may direct the entity to perform any additional function that is so added and that is consistent with the entity’s objectives.” This bill now gives the Minister the power to direct it to perform any other functions that the Minister deems acceptable and again that could be broad in the extreme. I have absolutely no faith in this Government particularly with its record around fiscal responsibility and indeed around compliance costs. 
I think two of the most telling submissions were from Telarc and from Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand Ltd. Both made very clear submissions and in fact did the work for this Government of identifying what the compliance costs would be. What did this Government do? It completely ignored the content of those submissions around compliance costs. It completely dismissed those concerns that were raised. Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand Ltd made it quite clear by setting out graphs and identifying all the figures. It was going to cost that company $155000 compared to $18000. I think that is absolutely abominable. I can believe that this Government would be so ignorant of the effect of the introduction of this bill on other entities. Telarc itself also goes on to outline some of the costs in its submission. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This part includes debate on the schedule.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I am not at all surprised this evening that the Government has chosen not to take a single call on a bill to do with standards. If we think about it it is not at all surprising. If we look at this Government which Helen Clark promised would set new high standards and the shemozzles we have seen since I am not surprised that not a single member of the Labour Government would want to participate in a debate on standards. We could talk about the standards that Labour has set around immigration law for instance and Mr Phillip Field. [ 
Interruption 
] Lianne Dalziel the Minister in the chair has finally popped up with a word in defence of Phillip Field. She is an ex-trade unionist. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Tell us about the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The bill is about standards. I would like the Minister in the chair to talk about standards. I think it could be quite interesting to hear from this Government about standards. We could hear about standards of ministerial conduct. We could hear about standards of parliamentary conduct. We have seen appalling examples of standards from everybody in the Government—from the Prime Minister down—in respect of this bill. 
This Government says in this classic Labour bill: “Do as we say not as we do.” Government members want to have a Standards Council in order to preach to others about what should be the standard but they do not want any standards applied to themselves. We had the extraordinary exhibition from the Prime Minister today that showed that the Government would not accept even the standard of the Solicitor-General or the Auditor-General. I ask the Minister why we are going to all this effort to pass laws about standards in respect of laboratories and petroleum all because we want to have an independent standard-setting process. We have one of those—it is called the Auditor-General. What happens when the Auditor-General says that the Government has breached the law? Labour members say that it is nothing to do with them and that the Auditor-General is wrong. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Tell us about the $16 million. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I just challenge Mr Carter to talk about— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Oh tell us about the court case. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: One minute the member wants me to refer to the bill on standards and the next minute he wants me to talk about building standards. I have a simple question for Chris Carter. Can he tell me whether houses in New Zealand—he is an ex-Minister in this area—should be built according to standards set by Standards New Zealand or whether we should defer to the Department of Building and Housing? Can the Minister in the chair tell us? I have here a press release from the Certified Builders Association which wants to know what standard applies. Can Mr Carter—a Minister of the Crown the previous Minister for Building Issues and the Minister of Housing—tell us? Can the Minister answer the question? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I’ve never been in court. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have to say to the member that I stand by my record of standing up for causes and I will continue to do that with courage—something that that member never does. But can he simply answer the question? What happens with Labour members is that they just want to change the law retrospectively if they get it wrong. Is that what Mr Carter will do with regard to breaking the law— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I didn’t break the law. Did you Dr Smith? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Actually the Solicitor-General says that Mr Carter did break the law. Mr Carter is subject to a court case for breaching the law over the pledge card. What is his answer on that? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No standards. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He has no standards. I simply ask the Minister in the chair and Mr Carter how Labour members can preach about standards to other New Zealanders when they blatantly ignore the law and ignore the standard-setting authorities around Parliament—the Chief Electoral Officer the Solicitor-General and the Auditor-General. We simply say that it is hypocritical of the Government to advance law on standards when it ignores the standards set for others. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The Labour Government is not only failing to live up to and set the standard but it is also consistent in not caring about other people’s money. Let us look at Part 2 which is about—fair enough—amalgamating accreditation bodies to make one body so that organisations can now receive accreditation under this new organisation called the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. But we are not talking about more compliance costs; we are talking about more actual costs to those organisations. 
I particularly want to challenge some of the other parties that supported this bill like New Zealand First and United Future in relation to the organisation called Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand. It is not just any organisation; it actually accredits services. It is a designated auditing agency approved by the Director-General of Health to audit all service areas under the Health and Disability Service. Under its existing accreditation which is from International Accreditation New Zealand the fee cost is $18915 for 3 years. I wonder whether my colleagues would like to take a guess at how many times that fee will increase when the organisation switches to accreditation under the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand? 
Hon Members 
: Tell us. 
PANSY WONG 
: Five is too modest—10 times! The fee will be $155823 which is 10 times the previous fee. I am not too sure what benefit it will buy for that organisation. Anyway a member of the organisation raised that point with the Ministry of Economic Development which once again said that he should not worry; it was a Government department and it was there to help. So the ministry talked to the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand and said that maybe it should review its fee structure as it seemed a bit high and that overnight there had been a tenfold increase. So the ministry came back with a counteroffer. Can members guess how much it was? 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Nine times. 
PANSY WONG 
: No not quite that much. It actually reduced it for 2 years by $20000. So from the original increase in fee which was about $137000 the increase will go down to $110000. What can be gained overnight by an accreditation fee increase of $110000? 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Hope. 
PANSY WONG 
: Dr Jackie Blue is on the Health Committee. She can tell me how much $110000 could purchase for us in terms of any operations. How many people could be put back on the waiting list that was culled? 
I would like the Minister to take a call. I think that having a one-standard accreditation agency is a sound concept but how do we justify the cost? We are not even talking about compliance costs—some of the organisations involved are providers of the health service. Overnight Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand will have to pay an additional $110000 simply to get accredited. I want the Minister to take a call and say what additional advantage will be offered to those health service providers that can now get an audit from that very reputable organisation Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand. 
I think we need to take these issues seriously. This bill is not just about increasing compliance costs that people will have to adhere to; it is actually about increasing overnight by $110000—by 10 times—the cost for an organisation that is already accredited appointed and approved by the Director-General of Health. If that organisation is doing such a bad job we should ask the director-general about it but if he felt confident to appoint that agency what is the justification for it suddenly to incur a $110000 additional cost? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next speaker I will deal with another issue. The previous two votes should have been announced as “Ayes: 66; Noes: 51”. So both votes will be altered accordingly. Thank you. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take another call on the Standards and Conformance Bill and to highlight yet another clause that gives rise to concern. Before I do so I say that people should be really concerned and alarmed about the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand because that is another one of those areas where there is agreement between Australia and— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was set up in 1998 by the National Government. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well I still have concerns around that relationship and I hope—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I was not here then and I can still have concerns around it. If it is anything like the Trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency model then I think we would do well to have concerns around it. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 16 “Powers of Council”. I note that part of the function is to: “collect and disseminate information relating to conformity assessment including the publication of reports pamphlets books journals and other publications: (m) provide advisory and other services in respect of conformity assessment:” and: “(n) promote research into the methods of conformity assessment:”. Members should look at that clause coupled with the review and the consultant’s report back on the review which states: “there are a number of gaps in knowledge of the standards and conformance infrastructure amongst the business community; and some regulators have opted not to utilise New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure especially in terms of developing or applying standards to support performance-based regulations and/or using third party conformity assessment. The report also found that some firms are not aware of the potential benefits standards and conformance may offer their industry generally or their individual business specifically.” I have to say given the compliance costs involved with this bill—which have been outlined admirably by previous National speakers—that businesses will not look to adopt any sorts of standards or conformity in regard to this bill at all if they assess what the cost will be as a consequence. 
Members should look at Telarc’s accreditation costs from the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. They are a significant part of Telarc’s cost structure being the third-largest cost after staff costs and rent and equal to approximately 50 percent of its 2004-05 annual profit. That is pretty substantial and pretty horrific and I suggest that not too many businesses will be rushing to get any standards or certification from that organisation. In 2001 the fee structure was amended in such a way that the impact on Telarc was a 30 percent increase in accreditation costs per certificate issued to its clients. That is a huge increase and it makes a huge dent into the profits of such companies. So how can they possibly try to remunerate any staff when those sorts of costs are involved? 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel waxes lyrical about wanting to reduce compliance costs in this country yet when push comes to shove she does absolutely nothing—in fact she did the reverse. This bill is a classic example of the ignorance of this Government around fiscal capability and responsibility. The Government has no idea of what its actions continue to mean for businesses in this country with the pervasive increased costs it keeps dumping on them and this bill is a hugely significant example of that. 
We note that the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand charter states that it is a not-for-profit organisation. One has to wonder what on earth it is planning to do with all of those fees and whether with the new agency being created it will start imposing a lot of other constraints and conditions on all sorts of businesses and requiring them to meet all sorts of standardisations. 
When we look at the other provisions that have already been outlined we see that the Minister can identify any sorts of specifications. New section 13(2)(m) inserted by clause 16 allows the Testing Laboratory Registration Council to: “provide advisory and other services in respect of conformity assessment:”. For goodness’ sake! The Government cannot even do that for itself let alone for the public of New Zealand. It has failed miserably to provide an example to the New Zealand public in the way in which it conducts its own affairs yet it expects the New Zealand public to have confidence in the way it acts on behalf of business. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 It is very hard for ordinary people to get excited about this Standards and Conformance Bill. The world of standards and conformance is all long words acronyms and plenty of specification numbers. This bill is so convoluted that none of the many media people around Parliament has even taken the slightest interest in it. 
This bill is designed firstly to make sure that the Standards Council develops standards for goods and services and that the Testing Laboratory Registration Council makes sure these standards are being met and conform with international standards norms and practices. That means in lay speak that New Zealand can be trusted internationally to produce goods and services of a high and consistent quality. The average New Zealander may not be interested in the detail of this bill but he or she does expect and rightly so that goods purchased and services used are functionally effective. People also expect that the standards in force in New Zealand are in line with international practice. 
But take a simple small issue—noisy exhausts. New Zealanders are very unhappy about the current standards concerning noisy cars and the testing regime for noisy exhausts. New Zealand is out of step with the rest of the world in terms of noise standards. For most of us it is pretty irrelevant but not for someone whose home happens to be near a road that has been designated by boy racers as a drag strip—and there are plenty of those around the country. For someone whose hotel or business is in the centre of a city the situation is a disaster. Families lose sleep and patience businesses lose patronage and income and our country loses its reputation for being clean and green. 
Our legislation has become weaker and harder to enforce over the last few years while most other countries—those of Europe the UK and Australia—have tightened their standards. Australia has updated its requirements so that all new cars need to meet a drive-by test of 76 decibels but in New Zealand cars have to meet only an 81-decibel test. But the real problem is that we allow the modification of cars with no commitment to a regular testing regime to ensure that even our inadequate standards are met. Cheap Japanese cars with modified noisy exhausts have been a persistent and growing problem ever since Labour came to power. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Standards and Conformance Bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.