Chauvel Charles: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Chauvel Charles: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14216] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I begin my remarks tonight by joining with Lesley Soper and John Carter in paying tribute to Brian Donnelly. Unlike members opposite who clearly want to be disorderly while I pay tribute to a departing member I would like to do so in a respectful way. 
It is not always the case that political appointees to diplomatic positions are the best people for the job but here it is clearly the case that an excellent appointment has been made. As we heard in Brian Donnelly’s valedictory speech he has lived in the Cook Islands he has Cook Island family members and he is intimately familiar with the customs the language and the mores of the Cook Islands. 
I take a personal interest in the Cook Islands because of my Tahitian parentage. The Cook Islands and Tahiti essentially share populations. It was only an accident of colonialism that they ended up being two different jurisdictions and the people are basically the same. As Brian Donnelly knows there are many ties of kinship between both sets of islands. 
But the Pacific is changing. I was reminded of this quite graphically when I visited family in Tahiti over the recess. I was there with my partner in time to witness the first round of the territorial elections that had been called there by President Sarkozy shortly after he won office. Parties very much in favour of a continued union with France won the majority of seats in the assembly there. Regrettably it has been very difficult to find media coverage in New Zealand about what has gone on in those elections the last round of which occurred just last weekend. This is notwithstanding the fact that the elections represent a fairly radical shift in the balance of power toward a non-indigenous power in the Pacific—that is France—which has clearly consolidated its hold in Tahiti. 
I think Brian Donnelly will know from his experience of the Pacific that other non-indigenous powers are very actively seeking to exercise influence in the region. They are seeking resources such as fisheries and they are seeking to wield political power influence—for example in the fight for recognition between China and Taiwan—and in my view we are seeing a level of instability and great power competition in the Pacific that we have not seen since colonial times. 
I think Brian Donnelly is an excellent representative for New Zealand to the Cook Islands part of the wider realm of New Zealand during this time of instability because he understands the Pacific and he understands the country to which he is being posted. The Prime Minister said in her speech that we are debating tonight that we project our values through our foreign and defence policies and that 2008 will be another high-tempo year. Brian Donnelly’s appointment is evidence of that sort of foreign policy in action and I wish him well. Kia orana Brian. 
I mention another departure announced today that will also diminish this House that of Katherine Rich. I hope that the House will allow me to pay a short tribute to her. On the record that she has established for herself on policy matters she shows that she is a true liberal. I acknowledge and pay tribute to the stances she has taken on a number of issues where she has dared to stand apart from the position of the majority of her party. I think in particular of her consistent support for the repeal of section 59 throughout that debate. In fact she was the only member on that side of the House who consistently championed that cause publicly and that was an extremely brave thing to do. I quote from something she said in July 2007 cited in the  
Listener 
: “Frankly I would not have been able to look at myself in the mirror if I’d voted against it because I have been working on that issue consistently since 2001.” The House needs more people with that sort of courage. 
She also refused to engage in the vilification of beneficiaries. Again unfortunately that made her somewhat unique in her party. This is what she said in August 2002: “I’m not your DPB-bashing sort of person. … Most of the people I meet on the DPB are pretty motivated people who have the same dreams and aspirations as the rest of us. Beneficiary bashing is a most unsatisfactory practice. It doesn’t really take you anywhere.” That was in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 on 25 August 2002 and is in drastic contrast with what John Key said in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 the same day: “We’ve seen enormous growth in the number of people on the DPB and where people have been for want of a better term breeding for a business. And I think that’s not really in the long-term interests of those people the children or the state.” 
I also place on record my personal appreciation to Katherine Rich for the fact that she was one of only three members of her party who voted in favour of the third reading of the Civil Union Act along with Clem Simich and Pansy Wong who also deserve a tribute for that support. I have here a copy of an advertisement that ran in the newspapers at the time in support of the Civil Union Bill and I am very proud to say that my name and that of my partner appear as endorsing that advertisement. The names of other members of this Parliament also appear but apart from Katherine Rich there no members of the National Party in evidence. 
I admire Katherine Rich not just because I agree with the policy positions she has taken but because she has had the courage to stand up for what she believes in despite what must have been enormous pressure. I wish her well and I look forward to working with her between now and the election. As I have said Parliament will be the poorer for her departure. So will the National Party caucus frankly because it loses its most brave and in my view consistent liberal. More than anyone on that side of the House she has supported policies that in the words of the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday contributed to building a fairer more inclusive New Zealand. She will be missed. 
I have mentioned the Prime Minister’s speech on a couple of occasions first in the context of foreign affairs and secondly in respect of policies of social inclusion. Like my colleague Lynne Pillay the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I would like to concentrate on the announcements about victims’ rights. They were contained in the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday and also in a press release by Annette King in a partial response to the inquiry into victims’ rights conducted by the Justice and Electoral Committee last year. That committee carried out the inquiry in cooperation in particular with the Greens and Nandor Tanczos and also with the support of Hone Harawira. As Lynne Pillay said we benefited greatly from the experience of being able to see what happened in a sister jurisdiction Victoria concerning the rights of victims of crime. It was a very satisfying experience and it was very sad that National Party members boycotted that trip and deprived themselves of the opportunity to see what we saw because I think the evidence shows that that inquiry into the rights of victims of crime was a very very good use of parliamentary time. 
I will just summarise the key aspects of the announcements made by the Prime Minister and Annette King. First there will be the development of a victims’ charter and the funding of a national 0800 victim helpline and a website for victims— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Are you promising the sun or the moon? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I think that is great stuff and I am sad that Mrs Goudie does not because there is more. There will be additional funding to the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups to build the capability of front-line service coordinators and the Law Commission will be asked to look at the question of compensation for victims of crime. 
The reaction to these announcements has been excellent. The Sensible Sentencing Trust has welcomed the recommendations of the victims’ rights inquiry and yesterday Victim Support applauded the announcement by Annette King that victims will have improved access to information and services through a range of initiatives. I just want to add my voice to those that have supported these steps because they demonstrate that this Labour-led Government is the one that will put in place meaningful steps to ensure the dignity of victims of crime rather than just engaging in the vengeful rhetoric of the National Party and its fellow travellers.