Volume 646 Week 73 - Thursday 17 April 2008 
Volume 646 Week 73 - Thursday 17 April 2008 
[Volume:646;Page:15783] 
Thursday 17 April 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members on Tuesday Gerry Brownlee raised with me the question of ministerial responsibility following a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice that asked her to confirm whether Ministers had attended a Labour Party workshop and about the actions of the Labour Party. The supplementary question was ruled out of order. The Minister of Justice has no responsibility for the actions of other Ministers outside her own portfolio responsibilities. She cannot be asked to confirm something for which she is not responsible. The Minister of Justice is not responsible for the actions of the Labour Party. Ministers are answerable only for the matters that fall within their portfolio responsibility. There is no responsibility for party matters and that goes for all parties. That is clear in several Speakers’ rulings. 
Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Principles for Intervention 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday I indicated that I would review an exchange in the House during question time to which a member took exception and which led to further disorderly exchanges and other members also taking exception. The Rt Hon Winston Peters asked a supplementary question of the Minister of Immigration concerning reports on Canadian immigration policy. There was nothing extraordinary in this but at the end of the question he added a throwaway comment “which Pansy Wong knows all about”. Ms Wong took exception to this remark. Questions have been raised about the legality of the policies to which the supplementary question referred. Veiled references to something dishonourable are not in order; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 51/4. On that basis and taking into account the disorder that arose I asked Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise which he did. This should have been the end of the matter. 
I now want to make clear to members how I propose to deal with personal reflections under Standing Order 116 and with offensive and disorderly words under Standing Order 115. I say to members that this is a long ruling and it will be available. Members will have an opportunity to read it and then if they wish to ask questions. I suggest they do so when we return. 
Where a personal reflection is made the Speaker will intervene if it is offensive to the dignity of the House as a whole—for example an accusation of lying or racism; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 41/3. The member against whom a personal reflection is made may raise the matter with the Speaker. If the member is not present then that is too bad; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 19/3. The Speaker will intervene to protect the member under Speaker’s ruling 41/6 if the reflection attributes something dishonourable to the member or is strongly undesirable insulting or offensive. There are several Speakers’ rulings; I refer to Speakers’ rulings 38/2 and 38/4. In judging the matter the Speaker will also take into account the circumstances—the state of order in the House at the time. If the personal reflection will led to disorder it will be ruled out of order. 
Standing Order 115 requires the Speaker to intervene where offensive or disorderly words are used. Again the test for the Speaker intervening is the state of order in the House at the time; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 50/6. If the Speaker does not intervene members may test a particular remark with the Speaker but contestable words used robustly in debate will not necessarily be ruled out of order. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 39/4. 
A member is required to withdraw an unparliamentary remark because it is the House that is affronted; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 52/2. Whether a word is unparliamentary or not does not depend just on exception being taken by members to its use. The individual reactions of members are not quite irrelevant but they are not a reason for the withdrawal of the comment in themselves. 
The problem that the Speaker faces is that members instead of taking a call to debate contestable remarks made by other members are appealing to the Speaker on points of order. This may be a consequence of time-limited debates and party allocations of the calls but the Speaker should not be drawn into deciding on what are essentially disagreements between members about issues of debate. 
Similarly in question time members instead of using supplementary questions to clarify or elucidate Ministers’ replies are appealing to the Speaker. It is not the Speaker’s role to judge the quality of the replies according to Speaker’s ruling 154/3. A point of order must concern a matter of order upon which the Speaker can rule; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 19/1. Continually raising matters of debate or the quality of answers in the guise of points of order may itself be disorderly as is set out in of Speaker’s ruling 20/1. 
As I said to members I will make a copy of this ruling available to members for their consideration. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 3-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 13 May priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill the last 2 hours of the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises and the first reading of the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could indicate whether by the time the House returns after the 3-week adjournment there will be anything about his coming Budget that is unknown to the public. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
A very large amount. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2008—Government Spending 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding Government spending and this year’s Budget that “We’ll be trying to keep … that very much under control because otherwise it starts to squeeze the capacity to do anything that is at all significant around the tax side.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did Labour decide to spend $600 million to pay for more jobs for diplomats on the day that 430 workers lost their jobs at Fisher and Paykel when large-sized low-quality Government spending is one reason why our manufacturers can no longer compete internationally? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it would be obvious to anybody that this decision was made before anyone in the Government knew of Fisher and Paykel’s intentions in that regard and of the sad loss of jobs at the Mosgiel plant. I say to the member that if he really believes that the small number of staff who serve our country overseas in diplomatic posts are the primary reason for the loss of jobs in Mosgiel then he really is completely away with the fairies. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What have been some of the major initiatives funded in recent Budgets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Recent Budgets have delivered substantial tax relief for families business and savers including the Working for Families package which will provide comfort for those people who have lost jobs in Mosgiel. We have invested heavily in infrastructure including roading and public transport to overcome a decade of neglect. All of these initiatives have been voted against by Mr English and the rest of the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that one reason the Government did not know that these decisions were being made is that while the decisions were being made the leadership of the Labour Party was auditioning Ministers for the silly song contest or penning their next line of vitriol for the House instead of concentrating on the issues that matter to New Zealand like whether workers can keep their jobs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That really was an example of fake anger and fake sympathy for the people who have lost their jobs. The people in Mosgiel have been working in a plant where there is only 5 percent tariff protection against international competition from low-wage countries. The National Party once stood for an open and free economy. Manufacturing jobs of this sort have sadly been moving to Third World countries around the world for any number of years. Today’s announcement also included the closure of a plant in Brisbane and the closure of major manufacturing capacity in California with a movement to Mexico which was clearly driven by the North American Free Trade Agreement. None of that has anything to do with a short period of light-hearted entertainment at a Labour Party conference. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen the comments by the chief executive of Fisher and Paykel: “We have been faced for many years with an extremely unhelpful exchange rate fuelled by high interest rates. Increasingly complex and costly compliance costs of manufacturing in our home countries have not assisted.”; and does he agree that the Labour Government has made a major contribution to high interest rates and complex and costly compliance costs for New Zealand manufacturers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not. I notice that in fact Mr Bongard also tried to blame the Chinese free-trade agreement. That is extraordinary given that tariffs on Chinese goods entering New Zealand in the whiteware area are already down to 5 percent and are due to be phased out— 
Hon Bill English 
: So he’s wrong and you’re right. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He is certainly wrong in that regard yes. If the member seriously believes that that is the reason for this decision why did his party welcome the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement and why did his party support removing tariffs throughout the 1990s? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand far from having high compliance costs has consistently been recorded by World Bank surveys as being in the top two countries in the world in terms of ease of doing business which is the opposite of what the member has just tried to allege? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is certainly true. It is also true that every survey I have ever seen shows that the costs of doing business in New Zealand are lower than those in Australia. What is clearly true—[ 
Interruption 
] Well in fact I can tell the member that a major business organisation in this country started doing a survey of the sort and when the results showed that costs were higher in Australia it ceased doing the survey and did not publish the results. I know that for a fact. The fact is that manufacturing these kinds of goods is cheaper in countries like China and Thailand and we are not able to compete with them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received reports that in a speech delivered by the leader of the National Party last week in which National outlined its priorities for foreign affairs National repeated everything that is happening right now but failed to mention resourcing; and does he not agree that sinking lids and razor gangs are no way for this country to perform internationally if we are to be back in the First World? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If this country is to improve its connections with the rest of the world and improve its trade performance it will need more people carrying out those functions offshore. If the National Party is now saying we should not invest in that it is simply saying it does not believe in expanding this country’s international economic performance. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister recall telling the Labour Cabinet last year that if it overspent the 2007 Budget it would “lead to an interest rate response from the Reserve Bank the exchange rate staying higher for longer and a more pronounced economic slow-down”—that is what he said would happen if it overspent—and that Cabinet then went ahead and overspent by more than $1 billion everything he predicted has actually happened and 430 people lost their jobs because of higher interest rates a higher exchange rate and the pronounced economic slow-down that he predicted? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member cares to go down to Mosgiel and fire a few cheap shots in the factory I used to represent he will find himself booed off the premises. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports suggesting that there are alternative economic policies in respect of helping Fisher and Paykel and has he read the book  
The Hollow Men 
 which in respect of the National Party’s treatment of these issues says “you know when you’ve cracked it when you can feign sincerity.”—it was obviously written by Bill English? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer the first part of the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen those matters. Clearly what is required here is for New Zealand to continue to move its production upmarket to continue to increase its production of high-value-added goods because it is the only way that we can succeed. I would be happy to talk to people about that because the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union which is part of the Labour Party in terms of affiliation—as the member likes to point out—has worked for a long-time with Fisher and Paykel at the Mosgiel plant to improve its production. Those workers are highly skilled workers but the fact is that round the world those kinds of manufacturing plants are moving to Third World countries. What Mr English wants of course is us to have a low-wage economy so we can compete with Chinese manufacturers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister think that when the workers at Fisher and Paykel believed what Labour said about the jobs machine and economic transformation they thought Labour meant that no wages were better than some? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What they will know is that in 1999 the then Government was planning to phase out completely the tariffs protecting those people and this Government slowed down the phase-out of tariffs protecting their workers at the Mosgiel plant. If the member wants poor worker health and safety conditions if the member wants low wages and if the member wants exploitation of workers that is not the way to compete to become a high-wage successful economy. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the Minister aware of any item of extra spending that he has announced in any one of his Budgets that the National Party now opposes as it heads into this year’s election; if so what is it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am not. I might note that when Mr English mentioned a $1 billion overrun in the initial Budget allocation the primary reason for that was a cut in the corporate tax rate designed to help New Zealand businesses be more competitive with international businesses. The National Party voted against that corporate tax rate cut—I presume National members argue that corporate taxes should have been put up so that the Fisher and Paykel plant could remain open. 
Education Funding—Budget Allocations 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much funding did Budget 2007 allocate to education and how does this compare to funding allocated in Budget 1999? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Overall education funding increased from $5.7 billion in 1999-2000 to an estimated $10.5 billion in 2007-08—an increase of 80 percent. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any reports on options for changing the funding mechanisms of New Zealand’s public education system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen two completely contradictory reports. On Sunday National leader John Key said that the party had looked pretty carefully at bulk funding and would likely reject it. The next day Mrs Tolley said on radio that the party had had discussions about “a whole range of things” but that “bulk funding hasn’t really been one of those”. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What further reports has the Minister seen on support for changing the funding mechanism by reintroducing bulk funding? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports of continued strong support for bulk funding from National’s deputy education spokesperson Mr Allan Peachey who has completely failed to endorse his leader’s statement that National abandon its bulk-funding policy. 
Junior Doctors’ Strike—Disruption to Services 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: When will hospitals begin advising individual patients that their specialist appointments or elective surgery will have to be rescheduled because of disruption by next week’s junior doctors’ strike? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that they already have. I am advised that when the strike notice was issued most patients were told that it was possible their appointments would have to be rescheduled. As yesterday’s mediation did not result in a settlement final confirmation of the need to defer appointments will be sent to patients today. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that in fact patients will be disrupted not just for the 2 days of the strike but for most of the working week meaning that the number of patient treatments being delayed is significantly greater than the 6300 he quoted yesterday? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yesterday’s discussion illustrated that the member could not add up the estimates that I gave. Of course it stands to reason that when one operation is rescheduled it impacts on others that occur later. But what is essential for me and for this Government is that patient safety is maintained and that we work to find a win-win solution for a situation that I am afraid I have to say is the responsibility of the Resident Doctors Association. 
Lesley Soper 
: Why was the dispute not settled yesterday? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Because of the unrealistic bargaining position of the Resident Doctors Association. I am advised that the association has not moderated its original claim of 20 percent in 2 years; now it is 30 percent in 3 years. The association wants more than any other health sector group. I have been advised that its members have been offered an increase similar to that offered to their fully qualified senior colleagues yet they have rejected it. There are 57000 other employees in the health sector who have ratified agreements in line with what has been offered to the junior doctors. In short it is hard to see what planet this group is on. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister really telling the House that it is not he who is running the show now but Deborah Powell? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: If that is the best the Opposition can do in the face of 8000 New Zealanders having their elective surgery disrupted by a person and an organisation that is taking a very short-term approach to this bargaining then the Opposition is in worse shape than I thought. 
Lesley Soper 
: What is the Government’s view on elective operations being rescheduled as a result of this strike? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: At the end of the day the people who will suffer from this strike are the patients and public of New Zealand. It is my view that the reason for this suffering is the bargaining tactics of the Resident Doctors Association. I am advised that over 80 percent—nearly 90 percent—of strike action in the health sector between August 2005 and February 2007 was related to negotiations run by Contract Negotiation Services. This company is run by Deborah Powell and represents around 7 percent of health sector employees. I am advised that the average first-year house surgeon earns $88000 in his or her first year plus 6 percent superannuation 6 weeks’ holiday 2 weeks’ study leave and free meals. Many workers would consider that a reasonable package for a first-year graduate. In addition to the offer that has been put before the Resident Doctors Association the Government has of course also funded 40 extra places at medical school per annum and has recently funded increases for the Medical Training Board. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the Auckland District Health Board has advised today that over 1500 specialist appointments and elective surgeries have been cancelled at that district health board alone which means that the real number of patients whose care is being disrupted is likely to be over 10000? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is unlikely that that member will ever be able to run any show if he cannot propose solutions. I can only take from his invective that he would cave to the unrealistic demands of the Resident Doctors Association. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How has the health system reached the stage where the Government has put $6 billion extra into it there are endless staff shortages across the health system and we are getting strikes affecting many thousands of patients; it is a real mess is it not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There are many many successes in the health sector and one of them is the Government not folding to give Deborah Powell’s union double what any other union in the health sector has got. It does not matter whether this strike lasts 2 days or 2 months; this Government is not going to fold in the face of such unrealistic demands. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would— 
Hon Bill English 
: He would for the senior doctors. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Yes he actually gave $30 million to the senior— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have called for a supplementary question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister give that same answer to the grandmother who waited in great discomfort for a year to get a hip replacement that has now been cancelled; and how long will she and thousands of other patients have to wait to get back on to another one of the Government’s ever-growing waiting lists? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Quite clearly the Government’s primary motivation here is to deliver health services to the New Zealand people who need them and that includes every person whose elective operation or procedure has been disrupted by this unnecessary strike. But I repeat two key points: the public expects more of an Opposition more of a so-called Government-in-waiting than carping about problems; it expects solutions— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What do you say to her? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The solution to this issue I say to Mr Ryall is not to fold in the face of a union that thinks its members deserve more than double what everybody else gets. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Rather than invective what would he say to the woman who has waited many months for vitally needed brain surgery only to be told she will miss out on her operation next week and may have to wait another 2 months to have surgery? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There are two words for that woman: Deborah Powell. 
Fish Stocks—Depletion 
4.  
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Will he name the Maori commercial fishers who are plundering the fish stocks; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I do not believe that it is productive to start naming individual companies that are guilty of unsustainable fishing practices. Suffice it to say advice frequently comes before me as Minister of Fisheries suggesting that poor environmental performance is an issue right across the fishing industry involving Maori Pakeha and foreign-owned companies. For example I am advised there have been numerous prosecutions of companies both of Maori-owned and other companies for illegal dumping of fish and there is widespread evidence of other dumping which has resulted in warnings to a number of commercial fishers. This is a critical issue because dumped fish cannot be recorded as having been taken— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I appreciate that you have made rulings on the answering of questions. However my question was very specific and asked the Minister to name the Maori commercial fishers that he has been damning in the media. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And I will say again to the member as I have said many times in the past that the Standing Orders do not require a specific answer. If that member raises this issue one more time then I do suggest that she goes to the Standing Orders Committee to get the rules changed. My ruling will not change as long as the Minister addresses the question. I think the Minister was somewhat fully addressing the question so perhaps he would like to bring it to a conclusion. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: This is a crucial issue because dumped fish cannot be recorded as having been taken and therefore dumping undermines the very system upon which we rely to manage sustainability of the fisheries. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Why is the Minister not taking any advice from his Cabinet colleagues: the Associate Minister of Fisheries the Hon Parekura Horomia; and the Hon Shane Jones who was a member of Te Ohu Kaimoana the Maori Fisheries Commission for the last 15 years—the last 8 as chairperson—and who has close relationships with and significant knowledge of the Maori fishing industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I take advice from all of my Cabinet colleagues regularly and I meet with the Maori caucus on a regular basis. I have to say that they show more concern for the sustainability of fisheries than the member or the Maori Party she represents. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree with Peter Douglas that Maori have been fishing sustainably for a thousand years and do not need to be told how to conserve resources? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Europeans have been fishing for well over a thousand years also. Indeed just about every New Zealander could claim an ancestry link to fishing. But the bald truth is that fish stocks all over the world have been seriously depleted by overfishing. This is a problem with common-pool resources. One cannot carve up the sea with fences and manage the resource through individual title; the fishery system requires a referee. Five hundred years ago neither Pakeha nor Maori fishers owned large factory trawlers that could scoop up huge tonnages of fish for export to distant markets; today they can. If fisheries of whatever persuasion take opportunities like that to deplete the sustainable resource of our fisheries then we will have no fish left. And no group who fishes—Maori or Pakeha—will benefit from that. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: What is the Government’s official position on Maori commercial fishing given that at the morning session of the Maori Fisheries conference the Minister of Maori Affairs—this Minister’s Associate Minister of Fisheries—was fulsome in his praise of Maori fishing interests yet later that same day he attacked the same people by accusing them of irresponsibly plundering fishing resources; or was it that the Minister deliberately set out to make his associate look impotent? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No Government has been more supportive of Maori fishing and Maori economic development than this one. I have personally led task forces into areas of large Maori populations and ensured that they got the kind of chance they had never had under previous Governments. But the fact is that although fishing resource is a scarce resource it has to be monitored and nurtured carefully and I will say over and over again to any audience that everyone participating in the fishing industry has to take a sustainable approach to that industry or there will be no industry left. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister agree that perhaps one of the best examples of traditional and universal adherence to sustainability practices has not always been followed given the unknown whereabouts of the moa? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that is entirely relevant to ministerial responsibility. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I will bow to the superior knowledge of the Minister on that matter. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister recall the warning issued by the Maori Party on 1 February this year that the key to achieving sustainable fisheries management is in maintaining effective communication between Maori commercial fishers and the Minister and his ministry; and what commitment will he now make to address the grave communication breakdown that currently exists between all parties? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The fishing industry—Maori or Pakeha and recreational customary as well as commercial—knows that my door has been open from day one and still is. I meet regularly with all elements of the fishing industry. Only last Friday I chaired the meeting of the fishery advisory committee that this Government set up early in its term. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. In view of the Minister’s recent comments regarding plundering “of fish stocks until there is none left” by Maori commercial fishery interests can he advise whether the same interests had been consulted about these concerns before making his comments; if so what was their response? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not think the fishing industry will die wondering about my muse on this matter and the industry has had it represented from me on many occasions. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister believe that he can be an effective Minister when the majority of the New Zealand fishing industry has no faith in his ability; and when will he take on board the advice of his Cabinet colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta that people should stop taking pot-shots at each other and should work together? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The issue before New Zealand in terms of fisheries is that the wild fisheries resource is a very fragile one and that all elements of the industry concerned in the utilisation of that resource have to take the utmost caution—a precautionary approach to fishing—and that is the approach I have urged on the fishing industry. If the industry does not take that approach then inevitably all those who rely on the fishing industry for any economic sustenance will be the victims. I wish that the member asking this question would take aboard that message and pass it back to those who are informing her of their views on this matter. 
Election Spending—Parliamentary Funding 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by the statement to the House given on her behalf “Matters that are properly authorised as being for parliamentary purposes do not count as election advertising for the returns of expenses.”; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: As the member is aware the Electoral Commission is currently doing some work to provide guidance to parties on the interpretation of the words “member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament.” The Minister has already said in relation to the particular matter that the statement referred to that the secretary of the Labour Party has decided that material that was published last year if attributable “will be apportioned against Labour Party expenses.” 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the Electoral Commission is doing more than some work on it; it has actually said that the Minister of Justice is wrong and in her statement yesterday she directly contradicted that position by saying that whether an MP’s newsletter counted as an election advertisement would depend on what the member puts in that newsletter; and how can MPs have any confidence in a Minister who appears to have no idea what the rules are and what is going on? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am very reluctant to get involved in rulings and I am sure the Minister of Justice would not but when one calls for a change of Government in a newsletter it could well end up being attributable. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she realise that if it is possible for an MP’s newsletter to be an election advertisement because of its content then it is also possible for an MP’s press release to be an election advertisement because of its content and is it the Government’s intention in putting forward this legislation that MPs’ press releases may have to be authorised by the financial agents of political parties because they constitute an election advertisement? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that is taking it to ridiculous extremes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister accept that if a press release such as a newsletter can be judged an election advertisement—and the Electoral Commission has already stated that one MP’s newsletter is an election advertisement—then can she confirm that any Government department or Crown entity that publishes press releases that constitute election advertisements on their websites are guilty of an illegal act under section 67 of the Electoral Finance Act? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In a word no. Read the Act Bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well actually I have and the Minister has not—that is the problem. He was too busy songwriting. Can the Minister tell us why it would constitute an election advertisement to put highly political statements into an MP’s newsletter but if the same sorts of statements are in for instance a Minister’s media statement published on a district health board website then that would not also be an election advertisement—for instance the statement where Pete Hodgson stated: “From the gutted health system we inherited from National Labour has invested $2.2 billion in primary healthcare” which is on the Waikato District Health Board website? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member cannot tell the difference between a statement of fact and electioneering. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister explain why statements that are made in an MP’s newsletter have already been determined by the Electoral Commission to be election advertisements but the Minister maintains the ridiculous position that the statement made in an MP’s press release will somehow be exempt from the law? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not differentiating between whether that sort of release is done by email whether or not it is printed and who leaked it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister instruct Government departments to ensure that they cannot be seen to be breaking the law when they publish highly political Labour-led Government press statements on their websites such as this statement on the Ministry of Economic Development website: “The Labour-led government is taking its economic transformation agenda to a new level” which is presumably a comment on the closure of Fisher and Paykel? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would not presume to do the work of the Auditor-General who has responsibility in this area or the work of the State Services Commissioner who also works in this area. Frankly I think the public are getting a bit sick of the sooky baby approach taken by that member. 
Crimes—Resolution Rates 
6.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What do the latest statistics show regarding the rates of resolution of crimes by the New Zealand Police? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Police 
: Police statistics released earlier this month show a continuing improvement in the rate of police resolution of crimes. Resolution rates have steadily improved across key categories of offending such as violence sexual offences drugs and dishonesty. Last year the police resolved close to 10000 more offences than in the previous year. This reflects the much stronger resourcing the New Zealand Police has received under this Government. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What reports has he seen regarding the resolution of offending involving the theft of emails? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen a report released by the police yesterday into the theft of National Party emails that concluded that no unauthorised or unlawful breach of computer security within Parliament took place. That means that contrary to the National Party’s claims of computer hacking it seems the theft of these emails was an inside job. That would be consistent with Nicky Hager’s claim that the leaked emails came to him from a group of disgruntled National Party people who were concerned about a secret ideological agenda and about the dishonesty around what National was saying as opposed to what it was planning to do. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What else does the police report on their investigation into the leaked emails show? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The police report says that there are strong indications that the emails were in printed form at the time of the theft rather than being hacked. It appears that this was not some grand theft from outside but rather an inside job and that National’s complaint to the police was more of an attempt to divert attention from the substance of the leaks that were so damaging to the credibility of the National Party. Although the police say that there is no firm evidence as to who leaked the emails the question may well be asked as to who stood to benefit most from discrediting Dr Brash and Mr Key. Perhaps the person stabbed in the back by both of those individuals Mr English could offer an answer to that question. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister stand by Labour’s 1999 pledge card promise to “crack down on burglary” when the latest crime statistics show that the actual number of burglaries resolved in 2007 was 1000 fewer than in 2000 and when a recent study showed that New Zealand has the second-highest rate of burglary amongst 30 countries? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I most certainly stand by the claim that I made. If the member looks back to a decade ago he will find that burglaries in New Zealand in absolute terms are down by about a third. Given that this is the most common form of crime a drop of a third in burglaries is a remarkable achievement by this Government. Further these statistics released on 1 April show that the rate of resolution of property offences has continued to improve because the police are now resourced to do the job they need to do unlike under the Government that that member was a part of a decade ago. 
Simon Power 
: I seek leave to table police statistics showing that the number of burglaries resolved in 2007 was 1000 fewer than in 2000. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Simon Power 
: I seek leave to table page 65 of the International Crime Victim Survey showing that New Zealand has the second-highest rate of burglaries amongst 30 countries. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I seek leave to table a release from the New Zealand Police that shows that dishonesty offences which make up 53 percent of all offences reduced by 5.1 percent last year— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The House knows that you are not responsible for Ministers’ answers but you are to some extent required to decide whether a Minister has appropriately addressed a question. I just notice that today unlike on many other occasions the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister of Police was more than happy to stray into what would previously have been described as operational matters. I wonder whether you might consider how a Speaker may work out the bounds between operational matters and plain political opportunity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister had responsibility for a matter that related to a police investigation that is now public. It was within ministerial responsibility. In terms of questions and answers having a political edge I say that if we banned those we would probably have none. I will take note of what the member has said. 
Economic Development Ministry—Grant Programmes 
7.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Is he confident that all current grant programmes offered by the Ministry of Economic Development are good value for the taxpayers’ dollar; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment)  
on behalf of the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: I am confident that the Ministry of Economic Development is doing its best to help New Zealand businesses to grow. 
Chris Tremain 
: How does awarding $90000 from the Buy Kiwi Made Sector and Regional Initiatives Fund to the National Distribution Union in an election year so that it can advertise the Government’s message to its own members provide good value for taxpayer dollars? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Believe it or not a number of workers make purchases. That is the basis of that campaign in the same way that the same fund has allocated $149870 in one grant and $53688 in another grant to Business New Zealand. This is a tripartite approach something members opposite would not know a damn about. 
Chris Tremain 
: Why is it credible that the Government rejected 30 out of 33 proposed Buy Kiwi Made projects in the first round of applications because they lacked demonstrable economic merits but then turned round and found $90000 in the second funding round so that the National Distribution Union could advertise the Government’s own advertising to National Distribution Union members their non-union colleagues and their families? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The answer to the first part of the question is because my predecessor was tough and did not want to waste Government money. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister confirm that all the independent evaluations that have been carried out through the Ministry of Economic Development of the efficacy of the Buy Kiwi Made campaign have shown that so far it has outstripped all expectations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It certainly outstripped my predecessor’s expectations. 
Chris Tremain 
: Why has the $3000000 Buy Kiwi Made Sector and Regional Initiatives Fund been closed down after three rounds of funding with only $975000 granted or allocated for grants; and why is the Government planning to transfer the remaining $2000000 of the fund towards yet more Government-funded advertising in election year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I just do not understand why members opposite hate Kiwi-owned businesses. 
Chris Tremain 
: Can we expect the final Buy Kiwi Made funding round of $400000 to include more funding for Labour’s union mates and more funding for Government advertising and can we expect the National Distribution Union’s promotion of Government messages to be completed before this year’s election? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Given the fact that Phil O’Reilly has had twice as much funding as the National Distribution Union I think the member should just have a little look at the facts that he received and that are there. That member should know that there has been a campaign as part of the arrangement with the Greens to develop New Zealand business through Buy Kiwi Made something that is strongly supported by New Zealand First. I do not see why those members opposite think that services and goods should all be imported. 
Chris Tremain 
: Where is the evidence of good value for the taxpayer from the Government’s multimillion-dollar Buy Kiwi Made Sector and Regional Initiatives Fund advertising campaign when 430 workers are out of a job today because Fisher and Paykel has been forced to relocate manufacturing offshore? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Let us try to get consistency from that member. Does he want New Zealand - made stuff or not? The Government has made a real effort in concert with New Zealand First the Green Party and Business New Zealand to focus on buying New Zealand - made products. Members opposite do not want that. I think that on a day like today having a question like that just shows a lack of taste. 
Chris Tremain 
: I seek leave to table the paper obtained under the Official Information Act that shows that it was the farmers’ market and Buy New Zealand Made online shopping mall not Phil O’Reilly that made applications. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I notice that the Government did not actually put down a question about Fisher and Paykel. Perhaps it would like to put down a question about the next announcement from Dunedin that the Tamahine Apparel Solutions knitwear factory is also going to close today with the loss of 50 jobs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order. That is exactly the sort of matter I was referring to in my ruling. I hope this is a point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you did indicate that you would deal with disorderly behaviour rather than just refer to it in your ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will move on to question No. 8. 
Refugee Status Appeals Authority—Conversion to Christianity 
8.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in the ability of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to make accurate judgments concerning the genuineness or otherwise of an applicant’s conversion to Christianity; if so why? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have confidence in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to make sound balanced and fact-based decisions on all facets of the appeals it considers because it is an internationally respected body independent of officials politicians and interest groups. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why then in a number of recent decisions has the Refugee Status Appeals Authority expressed doubts about the genuineness of the conversion to Christianity of Iranians seeking asylum in New Zealand in spite of detailed evidence to the contrary from clergy and pastoral workers from the Catholic Anglican Presbyterian and Pentecostal Churches that authenticates those conversions? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Refugee status does not depend on the genuineness of a religious conversion. A refugee is a person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of for instance race religion nationality membership of a particular social group or political opinion and who is unable or owing to such fear unwilling to return to a country. We are reliant on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for advice. We are reliant on the members of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority as independent individuals to make those judgments. They assess all the facts. They receive representations from qualified and unqualified stakeholders and they make decisions in an independent way. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister’s Government in light of the Iranian Government’s decision in February to proceed with legislation to mandate the death penalty for apostates from Islam—the bill was tabled in this House last Thursday—and New Zealand’s commitment to freedom of religion including the freedom to change one’s religion prepared to follow the lead of the Dutch British Canadian and Australian Governments and consider a moratorium on the deportation to Iran of Christian converts; will the Minister consider that? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We are governed by the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees not vested interest groups and not representations from others though they are taken into account. To date despite what the member says the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does not support the contention that Christians face these dangers if returned to Iran. However if it was to be the case that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees changed its view—it has a view for instance that it is inappropriate to return folk to certain countries like Somalia Iraq and other places unless there are exceptional circumstances—then of course New Zealand being governed by its international obligations would indeed consider that change. I note though that the UK Germany the Netherlands Australia and other countries have faced similar issues of repatriating Iranians who have hindered their departure. These countries have found that Iranians who are returned to Iran are unlikely despite their alleged conversion to Christianity or other claims to be subjected to persecution. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How genuine would a refugee’s conversion be if it was discovered that for example she had converted within an airport in Thailand on her way through to New Zealand then had come directly here then had claimed that her conversion would prejudice her future or endanger her and when her brother did the same thing and has since been back to Iran five times by aircraft; can the Minister confirm whether Dr Coleman or Mr Copeland has supported this woman called Bahareh Moradi whose name was raised in the House last week and who is an alleged bigamist? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: In general terms I can say that there have indeed been cases where migrants en route to a destination including New Zealand have miraculously converted in airport grounds to a particular religion—and I speak as an old Irish Catholic like Mr Copeland—allegedly in order to gain refugee status here. I say also in respect of the previous supplementary question that although I have deep respect for pastors ministers of religion and priests they are not immigration officers nor refugee status officers nor appeal authority members. I find it somewhat difficult even though I have respect for those ministers of religion to accept that they could make some miraculous judgment as to the legitimacy of a person’s conversion if that person had converted en route at an airport. As to the second part of the latest question I can only state that I do not have responsibility for the representations that members make but I repeat what I said I think last week: if members such as Mr Coleman can assist then we would welcome that. We expect that of all members. As I say— 
Ron Mark 
: Smoke ’em out. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes he does have some expertise in smoking people out. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a document from an international justice advocate Bryan Johnson setting out the reasons why Christian converts from Iran cannot safely return to that country. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the detailed exposition in the  
North Shore Times  
by Ms Bahareh Moradi’s pastor of how over 3 years she has had a genuine conversion to Christianity 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Biofuels—Mandatory Obligation 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Why is the Government proceeding with a mandatory biofuels obligation in fuels from 1 July 2008 when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said that importing biofuels risks damaging our clean green image and that the Biofuel Bill should not proceed? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The biofuels obligation is for a modest one half of 1 percent of land transport fuel in the first year. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is of course right to be concerned about sustainability issues but like the Greens I believe we can avoid importing unsustainable biofuels. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does this make any environmental sense when the Minister has agreed with oil companies that ethanol is likely to be imported from Brazil to meet that biofuels obligation and when the lead story in  
Time 
 magazine this week details how the very importation of that ethanol is leading to the mass destruction of the Amazon forest to which the story concludes: “biofuels aren’t part of the solution at all. They're part of the problem.”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I disagree that some biofuels are not part of the solution—they are and will be. In respect of the economics of different biofuel sources in New Zealand bio-diesel is cheaper than bio-ethanol in general. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What evidence does the Minister have of support for the mandatory biofuels obligation from New Zealand companies? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd has been making bio-diesel since 1999. That company is currently building a second multibillion-dollar tallow to bio-diesel factory with a capacity of 60 million litres per annum. Additionally a Solid Energy subsidiary has oilseed rape planted which it expects will produce more than 10 million litres of bio-diesel after the 2009 harvest. Both of these are more than enough to meet the obligation. These are two examples of companies investing on the basis of this Government’s sound sustainability policies and although National claims to be in favour of both innovative business and sustainability Dr Smith’s comments again reveal that National is all talk and opposes all meaningful steps. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Government agree with the United Nations food agency which said in February that biofuels are a “crime against humanity” and with the UK’s chief scientist who said last month that biofuels obligations are a threat to the lives of hundreds of millions of people? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Both the Greens and the Labour-led Government have always been aware that some biofuels are not sustainable but that does not mean that all biofuels are not sustainable. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to this House that “most biofuels are likely to come from South America to meet the obligation” and his further statement to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that we are likely to have unsustainable biofuels in the short term; and can he explain to the House how that might help the environment? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I repeat what I said in my answer to the primary question which was a repetition of prior answers in this House. I believe we can avoid importing unsustainable biofuels. Further I read a press release from BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd which states: “Dr Nick Smith has stated publicly that New Zealand is not ready to meet the July 1 target with a local sustainable product such as tallow. This is clearly not correct.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he stood by his statement to the House that “most biofuels are likely to come from South America to meet the biofuels obligation.” He did not address that in his answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He did not address it in a way the member found to his satisfaction but he did actually address the question by referring to a previous answer he had given—in effect the same answer. [ 
Interruption 
] I can see that my ruling has had absolutely no notice taken of it by members. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He did not address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will not be in the House much longer. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister see any difference between biofuels made in New Zealand from largely waste materials or low-value by-products and biofuels such as those from the US corn-to-ethanol programme or from soya beans or from palm oil which is destroying rain forests; if so can he confirm that all the examples that Nick Smith has referred to will be illegal under New Zealand’s legislation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Indeed that is the very purpose of sustainability standards around bio-diesel. I return to the somewhat simplistic proposition that the member Dr Smith is making that suggests that all biofuels are unsustainable just because some are. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister guarantee to the House that New Zealand will not be importing biofuels from Brazil; if so how is that consistent with his statement that “most biofuels are likely to come from South America” which he told the House 2 weeks ago? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I will not give that guarantee because I have absolutely no doubt that some of the biofuels that are produced in Brazil are from sustainable sources. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with New Zealand’s longest-serving Minister for the Environment Simon Upton who said that “the road to hell is paved with biofuels.” and the report that he co-authored with the OECD which concludes that the cure of biofuels— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He wasn’t the longest-serving Minister for the Environment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I will ask the question again for the benefit of the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We could all hear it. Just continue with the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is a reasonable interjection. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry I didn’t hear the interjection but I could quite clearly hear. If the member took offence then the answer is to take offence not to start reading the question again. This is the purpose of having the rules. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My question to the Minister is whether he agrees with New Zealand’s longest-serving former Minister for the Environment Simon Upton that “the road to hell is paved with biofuels” and the report he co-authored with the OECD which concluded that the cure of biofuels is actually worse than the disease? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I agree that a range of technologies will be needed as we make the transition over the decades to come from oil to other sources of fuel for transport. I think that I have been one of those first on record to say that it is more likely that a substantial proportion of that substitution will come from electricity rather than from bio-diesel and that is why the Government is leading on that front. Nevertheless part of the answer lies in sustainable biofuels. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the OECD Round Table report on sustainability saying that biofuels are a cure worse than the disease. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table “The Clean Energy Myth” lead story in  
Time 
 magazine showing the unsustainability of biofuels— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is the same Simon Upton who signed up to the Kyoto Protocol despite Mr Key now saying that global warming does not exist and who supported Max Bradford’s electricity reforms to plateau out costs only to see them go straight through the roof—is that the same Simon Upton that that member was talking about? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes it is and I would also note that Simon Upton has been consistent in his support of the need to take meaningful steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He supports the emissions trading scheme and is not as slippery on these issues as National. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We did not need that last comment. That is what causes disorder. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the piece written by Simon Upton saying “the road to hell is paved with biofuels”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table the press release from BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd showing that it has got sustainable biofuels— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Food Security—Strategy 
10.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Can he confirm that the only food security strategy the Government has is to ensure that the National Crisis Management Centre set up under the Beehive has a cafeteria that can cater for up to 100 people at a time and carries basic emergency food supplies? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: I can confirm that the Labour-Progressive Government does not have a food security strategy because New Zealand is a nation that produces many times more the quantity of food that is required to sustain our own domestic needs and there is therefore demonstrably no food security risk for New Zealand. I actually thought there was an obesity problem. However the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management has a work programme under way to provide support and coordination for the food sector in maintaining essential food supplies to communities during emergencies. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Who are the lucky 100 who will be catered for in the Beehive bunker; and how high do food prices need to go before the Minister’s Government thinks it is worth developing a food security strategy to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to healthy affordable food even if food prices continue to escalate and there are global food shortages? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not think that providing food for 100 people in the bunker in an emergency would risk the food supply to the rest of New Zealand and I do not think it would be helped if we started growing rice in Southland. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the need for a national food security strategy? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have. Last week I saw a press release from the Green Party that stated: “New Zealand urgently needs a food security strategy to put in place mechanisms to ensure we have sufficient food to survive interruptions in basic food commodities like wheat corn and rice”. Last year New Zealand’s wheat crop was the largest since 1976 at more than 340000 tonnes which is over 80 kilograms for every person in the country. Sweetcorn production has been steadily climbing in recent years and is currently around 97000 tonnes per annum or 20 kilograms per person of which about 25 percent is exported. New Zealand does not produce rice for obvious climatic reasons. To suggest there is even the remotest risk that New Zealand could face food shortages is simply not credible. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that food security is about more than how much food we grow in New Zealand and that it is also about whether low-income families can afford to put healthy meals on the table; and why does his Government not have a strategy to protect all New Zealanders from escalating world food prices not just the 100 people with a place in the Beehive bunker? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I just pointed out to the member that more of the food items she quoted in her press release are being produced in New Zealand than at practically any other time in our history. The last thing in the world we are likely to prevent food shortages by doing is growing rice. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that we imported 29000 tonnes of cereals in 2006 and 2007 alone and that food security no matter how much food we may grow—such as Fonterra with its dairy products—is a matter of affordability; and can we expect to see strategies in the coming Budget to ensure that all Kiwi kids can get access to healthy food even as prices escalate such as perhaps through the roll-out of a free fruit programme in schools so that every New Zealand child is guaranteed at least some fresh fruit every day and other initiatives to make food more affordable for New Zealanders? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just note that this question is straying a long way from ministerial responsibility for civil defence. But perhaps the Minister would like to address it as it relates to that narrow issue. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In terms of New Zealand’s security it is critical for us to be able to trade with the rest of the world. We import some cereals from around the world but I have to remind the member that almost 90-95 percent of all of our agriculture production is exported to the rest of the world. If that did not happen we would end up eating possums and the people in Greenland would end up eating polar bears. I do not think that the Green Party would be in favour of that either. 
Doha Round—Market Access Offers 
11.  
TIM GROSER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: Does he agree that the Doha round negotiations are likely to enter a decisive phase in the next month or two and that all serious participants are likely to be asked to confirm or improve market access offers or “concessions” that are currently on the table? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The Government regards the conclusion of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha round as its key priority in trade negotiations. Progress has been made and is being made through the Geneva process but there are still areas around which agreement has not been reached in agriculture and there is still a significant distance between the parties in the non-agriculture market access area. We would hope that negotiations might reach a decisive phase next month with the production of texts from the negotiating committee chairs and also a “green room” but there is as yet no certainty about that. As in any negotiation of course all parties will need to show some flexibility if the round is to be successfully concluded. 
Tim Groser 
: Has the Minister seen the joint letter of 11 April from the Australian Trade Minister Simon Crean and his US counterpart United States Trade Representative Susan Schwab entitled “Doha Dealbreaker” which states: “It is essential that major decisions on agriculture and industrial goods be accompanied by positive commitments on services.” and that “Over the next few weeks … we will be looking for key WTO members to signal their commitment to make significant improvements in their services offers.”; and can the Minister confirm that this letter cites transportation services amongst a list of key sectors? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. I have rather anticipated the member by having the  
Wall Street Journal 
 article in my hand; in fact I think that is where he drew his question from. Services very clearly are important. I have had the opportunity this week to discuss both with Peter Mandelson European Union commissioner and Susan Schwab where the round is at. New Zealand has been a positive player in the area of services. For example we have supported the January 2008 text on services. New Zealand’s role is regarded as being positive and no country makes the claim that New Zealand has unfair restrictions on services when compared with the much more restrictive processes that exist in almost every other place. 
Tim Groser 
: Can the Minister explain to the House given the political decision to decline the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board’s foreign investment application in precisely those transportation sectors how New Zealand can possibly maintain let alone improve its offer of complete liberalisation for airport operation services and airport management services as offered to all WTO members and set out in WTO document TN/S/O/NZLRev1 of 17 June 2005? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What I can confirm is that when John Key was asked a question on television about this he declined to answer no fewer than seven times and this response was punctuated by “Um … er … ah.” I can confirm that when National members had the opportunity yesterday to call for an urgent debate in this House they failed in the courage to do so. 
Tim Groser 
: How would the Minister reconcile moving backwards on this important services offer with the likely general requirement that he may be faced with personally if he represents New Zealand in a couple of months at the much-heralded ministerial meeting when everyone else is moving forward with improved market access and he will essentially be obliged to withdraw one of the key aspects of New Zealand’s offer? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member probably knows what he has just claimed is utterly inaccurate. New Zealand will move forward on its market services offer but as the member will know from the 2003 Cabinet guiding principles that offer will not require any changes to be made in New Zealand’s existing regulatory settings. We will make a good offer but it will not be at the cost of changing what we regard as necessary to protect this country. That offer will be welcomed. As the member knows our investment regime is far more liberal than that of almost any other country that will be entering that round. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is implicit in the previous question the assertion by the member asking the question that under a future National Government New Zealand should be required under its WTO obligations to sell off infrastructure assets? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister cannot speculate on other parties’ policies on that. 
Tim Groser 
: Is the Minister essentially advising the House that this in no way compromises his negotiating position and that once he has found somewhere in Geneva a village idiot to sell an airport or two he is then going to move on to trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To the first question the answer is yes and it will come as a revelation to some of Mr Groser’s colleagues that he is now promising to sell off the remaining New Zealand infrastructure. 
Blue Chip Liquidations—Assistance 
12.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What action has she taken to assist people who have been affected by the Blue Chip liquidations? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I have been closely monitoring the Blue Chip situation. One of the recurring themes has been the need to access advice. Thanks to the generous support of the Institute of Chartered Accountants a freephone line has been established by the Companies Office which enables a matching process to occur whereby Blue Chip victims are matched with a member of the institute who lives in their region. Those members have volunteered to give free advice to worried investors. People have asked why Blue Chip investors are in a different position from investors in other finance companies. Essentially those who invested their money in other failed finance companies are in the same position whereas Blue Chip involves over 50 companies and a complex range of arrangements and therefore investors are experiencing quite different problems. Some own property for which the promised rent has not been received others paid deposits for apartments that have never been built and some invested on the basis that Blue Chip would buy back the apartment immediately prior to settlement. It is an enormously complex situation and I congratulate the Institute of Chartered Accountants on stepping up to the plate on this matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware of a member of Parliament who extensively promoted Blue Chip’s business switched from a proven financier that has paid back 97c in the dollar on its liquidation—Western Bay Finance; and of course Mr Ryall helped out with that as well—then that same member of Parliament promoted the company— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Get out of the gutter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When tens of thousands of people lose all their money I will not get out of the member’s gutter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please come to the point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —in Tauranga where people lost all their savings and now wipes his hands of that responsibility; is the Minister aware of that and of that member of Parliament? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I am not aware of that particular situation. But if the situation that the member advises the House of does exist then I would suggest that contact be made with the liquidator Jeff Meltzer who has been very helpful in these matters. I would also suggest if those allegations are able to be substantiated that the matter be referred to the Serious Fraud Office. 
Appointments 
Chief Ombudsman 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 3(4) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Beverley Anne Wakem CBE Ombudsman of Wellington as Chief Ombudsman. 
 Beverley Wakem will be well known to members of the House. Her early career after study at Victoria University and the University of Kentucky was in the broadcasting business where she began in 1963. She was of course chief executive of Radio New Zealand from 1984 to 1991. 
She then spent a number of years in the private sector with Wrightson Ltd as firstly commercial director and then general manager of human resources and corporate affairs. She was appointed by the then National Government to the Higher Salaries Commission in September 1997—now of course the Remuneration Authority. She was reappointed to that body in 2001 and again in 2004 and she held a number of other Government appointments and private sector directorships. 
In March 2005 she became an Ombudsman and she has served in that office with distinction over the last 3 and a bit years. She is clearly the senior person now in the Office of the Ombudsmen and is well qualified to take over the role of Chief Ombudsman. This process has been through a broad consultation with other parties in the House and I gather there is unanimous support for her appointment. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 National supports the appointment of Ms Beverley Wakem as Chief Ombudsman and I think it is appropriate for the House and for those people listening if I talk about the very important role of the Ombudsmen in our society. Earlier on this week the House appropriated money to three areas that sit under the Officers of Parliament—that is the Auditor-General the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Ombudsmen. For those listening and for those members in the House who do not realise the Ombudsman was first appointed in 1962 under the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act and in essence has been an evolving position through this Parliament over the last few decades. 
I think it is important to touch on some of those movements over time when New Zealand has been evolving as a country. In 1968 the role of the Ombudsmen moved into education and hospital boards and they could make all sorts of inquiries of that nature. In 1975 when the Ombudsman Act evolved to encompass local government agencies the Ombudsmen had an important role as they also had when the Official Information Act was passed in 1982 in that they could do investigations and review complaints to do with all sorts of ministries of the Crown and central government agencies. In 1987 the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act came into force and in 2000 the Protected Disclosures Act which is the whistleblowers legislation came into force. 
I know from sitting on the Officers of Parliament Committee that the Ombudsmen do a big job. Over the last few years their workload has increased considerably. They have a staff of about 50 now and do some very very good work. The Ombudsmen’s investigations that are carried out are conducted free and conducted in private. Beverley Wakem had the endorsement of the whole of the House I believe when her appointment went through the Officers of Parliament Committee earlier this week on 14 April. She has been acting in her capacity as the Chief Ombudsman following on from the late John Belgrave who passed away sadly on 3 December 2007. 
I want to touch on Mr Belgrave—in particular when he became quite a public figure in 2005. He rocketed to national prominence when he forced the Prime Minister Helen Clark to release the Treasury costings on the controversial interest-free student loan programme. The Prime Minister reluctantly did so and it was revealed that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer the Hon Dr Michael Cullen had grossly underestimated the cost of the programme. 
National today supports the appointment of Ms Beverley Wakem as Chief Ombudsman. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Madam Speaker kia ora tatou. Three years ago Beverley Wakem addressed a ceremony in Wellington with the words “You will need to be well informed develop a sense of perspective what is the history of this and that what is going on behind and what is going on in front and what is the cause of this. Be curious be sceptical and don’t be sidetracked by political spin and be alert to the large responsibility you have in seeking the truth. And remember in the welter of technology which surrounds you that the most simple means of communication is still the best—people talking directly to people.” 
The occasion was the presentation of the 2005 Churches Broadcasting Commission scholarships and those words could just as easily have been applied to the role of Ombudsman. The Maori Party has enormous respect for those people who fill the shoes of the Ombudsman role. Their job is as other members have already said pretty difficult involving investigating complaints about the decisions of central and local government agencies and Ministers of the Crown and doing the legwork to seek out the truth. The list of complaints that can be received is pretty substantial from what I can see including benefit payments housing health immigration passports accident compensation prisons education taxation and child support and on and on it goes. 
To be able to respond to the demands of this position takes a special type of person and a particular set of skills. We in this House all appreciate just how unique these people are through our association with the former Clerk of the House Mr David McGee who after 34 years in this place when others would be thinking of a good holiday took on the challenge of the Ombudsman’s role. 
The Maori Party is happy to support the appointment of Beverley Wakem as the Chief Ombudsman. As noted earlier it takes a person of distinctive qualities to take up such a challenging role. In dealing with many agencies—and I am thinking particularly of prisons the police and Child Youth and Family—our whanau feel as if they are caught in the context whereby they either sink or swim or suffer. The Ombudsman helps them to swim and to restore their confidence that if there is injustice occurring the independent scrutiny of the Ombudsman will help to right the wrongs. 
Beverley Wakem is no stranger to challenge. Beverley brings a remarkable reputation to the role having had significant management and governance experience across a range of performing arts institutes insurance savings and remuneration bodies as the general manger of Wrightson Ltd executive chairman of Hill and Knowlton and an associate member of the Institute of Directors. She has also made her mark on the national scene by being unafraid to ask the hard questions in order to search out the truth—or at least for a more positive outcome. 
As chief executive of Radio New Zealand she engaged in a public fight over gender issues when she banned a list of 140 sexist terms of abuse from news and advertising. In the same role in 1986 she appeared before the Waitangi Tribunal and impressed its members with what they described as “impressive diligence and care” in explaining the impact that broadcasting media have on Maori interests. 
In 2002 she was a member of a change implementation advisory group set up by the State Services Commission which produced a report about turning the face of the system towards citizens. The focus of the group was to encourage—and indeed provoke—public officials to see citizens in a much broader frame and to be willing to engage in new ways of thinking and relating. 
All of these qualities will stand Beverley in great stead for the very significant role of Chief Ombudsman. We wish her great courage in continuing to tackle the truth to be curious to be sceptical and not to be sidetracked by political spin. Kia ora tatou. 
Motion agreed to. 
Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is a special one. It recognises the enormous significance of Mauao Mount Maunganui to the iwi of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga and also to Waitaha. The bill represents the successful culmination of many years of patient dedication by the kaumatua Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana and the iwi themselves. The bill will implement the negotiated agreement between the Crown Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga the trustees of the Mauao Trust and Waitaha. It recognises the mana of Mauao and provides for the transfer of the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve to Tauranga Moana iwi. 
The bill represents what I consider to be a constructive and forward-looking outcome for Tauranga Moana Maori and for the wider community. Under the bill iwi will become the holders of the fee simple estate in Mauao. The Tauranga City Council will continue to be the management body and the Crown will continue to discharge a set of duties and obligations relating to Mauao as if it is still the titleholder. Tauranga Moana iwi will advise on the day-to-day management of the Mauao historic reserve as representatives of the Tauranga City Council’s Mauao steering group. This combination of iwi ownership and joint management will ensure that management practices are both culturally and environmentally appropriate and maintain public safety and access. The bill also sets the platform for a longer-term benefit for the wider community as all New Zealanders will stand to gain an enhanced appreciation of what Mauao means to the tangata whenua. 
I take this opportunity to thank members of the Maori Affairs Committee for their careful consideration of the bill. I would also like to thank those who submitted on the bill for their contribution to this important process. The Maori Affairs Committee heard from a range of submitters and worked through the issues that those submitters raised. The key changes recommended by the committee addressed issues raised by submitters relating to clauses 7 and 8 of the bill. Submitters were concerned about the way in which the legal rights and obligations in relation to the Mauao historic reserve were reflected in these clauses. In particular the bill as introduced noted that Mauao would be treated as if its fee simple estate were still vested in the Crown. 
The question was then raised as to who is the real owner of Mauao under the bill and whether iwi were actually receiving the title to Mauao. To be clear Tauranga Moana iwi will become the legal owner of Mauao. It will receive the fee simple estate in Mauao and be recognised as its registered proprietors. What will not transfer is the burden of responsibility both financial and statutory that comes with the management of a historic reserve. That responsibility will continue to be borne by the Crown. This was the intention behind clauses 7 and 8 and it was central to the negotiated agreement. The committee reworked these clauses after hearing from submitters to make the distinction clearer and to emphasise that it is the iwi that will own the fee simple estate in Mauao. 
I understand that Tauranga Moana iwi have recently reached a memorandum of understanding with the council that reflects the aspirations that iwi have to be more involved in the management of Mauao as a historic reserve in the future. I congratulate iwi and the council on taking this initiative in further strengthening their relationship. Under the bill the existing management arrangements currently provided by the Tauranga City Council will continue for the foreseeable future. I also want to assure the House that the existing management arrangements will continue for the benefit of tangata whenua and the wider community which will continue to enjoy the maunga tupuna of Tauranga Moana iwi. 
The bill raises the profile of Tauranga Moana Maori and in achieving that I salute the kuia and koro and all the whanau for that matter who have supported the progress of the bill. I also congratulate the Mayor of Tauranga and the Tauranga City Council on their foresight in enhancing iwi input into the management of Mauao by raising the status of its Mauao advisory committee to a steering group over the course of negotiations. The council has now signed a memorandum of understanding with the iwi rununga. It is a credit to both parties that they are working together in this way. 
This bill will give greater recognition to the iwi—something long overdue—it will grow the community’s appreciation of the ongoing significance of Mauao to Tauranga Moana and it will further strengthen the ties between our communities under the Treaty. I therefore endorse the recommendations of the Maori Affairs Committee. I wholeheartedly support the second reading of this bill and its quick passage so that the transfer of Mauao into the hands of iwi finally becomes a reality for the Tauranga Moana people. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in the second reading of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. National supports the bill and I support all the remarks that have been made by the Minister of Maori Affairs this afternoon. Mauao of course as it is known to the Tauranga Moana iwi is more commonly known as Mount Maunganui and it is of hugely significant cultural traditional historical and spiritual importance to Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga and Waitaha and this bill essentially sees the return of that maunga to the Tauranga Moana iwi. Therefore this measure is a reason to congratulate those iwi and to celebrate with them. 
The select committee process that we went through in recent weeks was a pretty memorable sort of affair I have to say. The Maori Affairs Committee went to Tauranga where a very fulsome gathering of iwi elders was there to greet us and I will come in a minute to the issue that most bothered them. I think one of the best things about being in Parliament when a transfer of this nature takes place is to go and visit with the iwi concerned to soak up the significance of it although I think most of us were aware of that anyway—and I include in that my colleague Bob Clarkson who filled in because he is a local member. He also has a very keen appreciation of the depth of association—the historical ties and spiritual association—of the Tauranga Moana iwi with their maunga. But in that they are not unlike other iwi who all associate and identify themselves with their maunga or their awa. 
It gave me an enormous amount of pleasure though—and I just want to refer to this again—to see the reasonably large gathering in Tauranga. It was very respectful but the iwi had mostly come to see the select committee about what they saw as a Clayton’s transfer of the fee simple to them. If I turn to the bill as introduced I see clause 7 reads: “For the purposes of any enactment … or rule of law Mauao historic reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve were still vested in the Crown.” That in combination with clause 5 “Mauao historic reserve vested in trustees of Mauao Trust” which included a statement that the fee simple was to be returned to the Tauranga Moana iwi had become a matter of some concern and I think considerable hurt to them. It seemed to them that on the one hand the Crown was giving something back to them but was taking it away in the same breath. It was a matter of such moment to them that representatives of the three tribes all turned up to voice their concerns and to see whether the select committee could do something about it. 
That is not always possible to do when one is on a select committee because obviously the two major parties the two major players in terms of most bills have pretty set positions and one does not always achieve the changes that one is sometimes asked to achieve. But fortunately in this case the arguments that were put forward were pretty potent— 
Pita Paraone 
: Thanks to the third party. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Oh of course yes. Actually I failed to mention the third parties not because I was trying to imply that they were not influential but because the two big parties in the sense of the traditional adversarial system tend sometimes to dominate not just this Chamber but also the select committees. Although that did happen in this case the two major parties and the two smaller parties New Zealand First and the Maori Party were all in agreement and I think that is the main thing. 
I think that the Tauranga Moana iwi will be very pleased to hear that all the parties assembled around the select committee table were in agreement. We took on board what the iwi said—that this felt like a Clayton’s transfer of their maunga back to them. The matter was of considerable pain to them. They asked us to please go away and consider the matter. That is what we did and I am happy to say that thanks to the input of all a change has been made as the Minister has outlined. Although on the face of it the words possibly do not necessarily convey that a significant change has been made none the less I trust that the Tauranga Moana iwi are satisfied with and appreciative of what has been done to act on their request. 
We have now made changes to the bill. As the Minister has conveyed the fee simple passes to the iwi. But in fairness to the officials one of the things that I think they were always concerned about was to ensure that the responsibilities and management obligations that go with being the owner of any piece of land—not the least of which is the Mauao historic reserve—did not transfer to the iwi. So Mauao will return to the Tauranga Moana iwi in a form that they feel is more of a proper return than it was previously but as has been noted none of the obligations and responsibilities that are currently with the Crown in terms of the Reserves Act will be transferred. They will stay with the Crown and in terms of the day-to-day management of the reserve they will stay with the Tauranga City Council. 
The select committee process was good. It was consensual and everybody worked together to get a good result. This is again one of those moments in Parliament when an iwi or a group of iwi for whom an issue had been a gnawing pain in their side for a long number of years came to the Crown several years ago to ask for the return of their maunga. The Tauranga Moana iwi have patiently come forward and achieved that. Iwi have to have the patience of Job frankly to get themselves through one end of a settlement like this one and out the other end while still feeling reasonably intact but these people have done that in their quiet respectful and very humble way. They have done it in a way that does them credit and makes me feel very proud as a Maori as Tuwharetoa and as a member of this House. I am very proud that ultimately the right thing to do is being achieved more and more often in this place. 
I congratulate the iwi from Tauranga Moana. I thank all my colleagues on the select committee. It is satisfying to achieve these transfers of land and it is often fun as well especially when we know that after having discussions all around the table we will probably get a change that everybody can agree with including lo and behold the Government members. The Government members are often the ones who hold the power in the select committees but they too could see the utter sense and the justice of changing the wording of the bill in order to make the people feel that this is indeed a proper return of Mauao. So I salute the Tauranga Moana iwi I salute their maunga I salute their awa and I look forward to the quick passage of this legislation through the House in order for the Tauranga Moana iwi to complete the long journey they have been on. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
: 
 Tena koe te Whare tena koe te Wahine e noho mai ra i runga i te tunga teitei ra. 
[ 
Greetings to you the House and to you Madam Assistant Speaker seated there in your lofty position 
.] 
I stand today to support the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I am particularly proud to support the second reading of this bill. It represents the final hurdle for the iwi of Tauranga Moana who have waited so patiently since the initial delegation of kaumatua visited Ministers in Wellington asking for the return of this important taonga to them. I am pleased that the bill has progressed through the Maori Affairs Committee with the full support of all parties so that the fee simple estate can be transferred to iwi. 
I will pause here to pay a special tribute to the kaumatua who submitted on the bill before the select committee. They were the ones who began this journey and they will appropriately be the holders of the fee simple estate on behalf of iwi which is befitting to their status and their mana. I also congratulate the runanganui of Tauranga Moana the mandated body on progressing this proposal as a source of kotahitanga for Tauranga Moana Maori. I would also like to mihi to our kaumatua for their role in guiding and supporting the runanganui and the Crown in our discussions over the past few years. The same kaumatua spoke in support of the bill when it came before the select committee. They urged us to return the maunga to them. They very clearly reminded us that iwi never ceded the mauri and the mana of Mauao. 
I also congratulate the mayor and his officials once more on their foresight vision and support for this bill and the council’s willingness to strengthen its relationship with iwi and the trustees. 
The submitters spoke overwhelmingly in favour of the return of Mauao. Many of them however objected to the way in which the Crown’s ongoing role was expressed in the old clause 7. The select committee has therefore considered these concerns and recommended to the House that appropriate changes be made. The key changes to the bill are the deletion of clause 7 and the incorporation of its intent in a new clause 8. Clause 7 of the bill as introduced provided for the general law to continue to apply to Mauao and to that effect it stated: “Mauao Historic Reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown.” The tone of the language used in the bill caused some concern among submitters but its intent was not well understood. The new wording has now been found and it still allows for the general law to apply as agreed by the parties but in a less provocative way. New subclause 8(3) states: “Unless and until the reservation of Mauao historic reserve as a reserve is revoked under the Reserves Act 1977 the Crown continues to have in relation to the reserve the rights and obligations of the holder of the fee simple estate (including any obligations in respect of occupational health and safety building or rating liability legislation).” With these changes the bill will clarify which laws other than the Reserves Act will continue to impact on the management body of the Mauao Historic Reserve and which in turn will not become a burden or a liability to the holders of the fee simple estate. 
The new wording also provides that Mauao will continue to be an iconic place for all New Zealanders to appreciate but more than ever before as a place of great significance as a taonga to the tangata whenua of Tauranga Moana. Despite the select committee’s recommended wordings there is no intention to revoke the reserve status and kaumatua specifically endorsed the scope of the agreement because it retains Mauao’s reserve status which protects Mauao from commercialisation and alienation. The journey of this initiative from its conception by kaumatua through to its culmination in this bill has involved numerous meetings and consultation hui to fine-tune the proposal. It has been discussed with the council and consensus has been reached among four iwi. The original outcome sought is now about to reach fruition. I believe that the intention to strengthen kotahitanga among the tribes and build the relationship with the Crown is an honourable one. 
As members are aware the fee simple estate will transfer to trustees who will receive and hold the title to protect and preserve the mauri of Mauao and facilitate the maintenance of the natural physical and cultural integrity of Mauao under their trust deed. The existing management by the Tauranga City Council will continue as appointed by the Minister of Conservation under the Reserves Act to manage control and administer the reserve. Tauranga Moana iwi and the council have recently signed a memorandum of understanding that also provides for a new relationship with the Mauao Trust and the involvement of the trustees in the governance and management of Mauao. 
There are real benefits here in the convergence of these goals in bringing together iwi and council in a more meaningful way as each party brings their different areas of expertise together to manage the maunga. The matauranga or body of collective knowledge that iwi hold in relation to Mauao has great potential to enrich the wider community as well. Vesting the fee simple estate in Tauranga Moana iwi gives greater recognition to this. It is not simply a matter of acknowledging their ancient history. It is the values and expertise handed down over the generations and held by iwi that are also important and increasingly relevant. The council should not be expected to manage Mauao as a historic reserve without the benefit of this expertise. Combined with the council’s infrastructure and administrative expertise this bill should ensure that Mauao is protected and respected for generations to come. 
As noted previously the Crown and iwi acknowledge that this bill is not consideration for the settlement of any Treaty claim against the Crown. The enactment of the bill will not preclude any of the four iwi from seeking to further achieve their aspirations to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in respect of Mauao. 
Finally as a Labour member of the select committee I want to express my gratitude with a sense of integrity for the collegiality of the whole of the select committee acting in unison towards ensuring that we were able to make critical and significant changes to the wording of this bill which enhance the position of iwi and also the Crown in its final outcome. I support the passage of this bill as a point of unity for Tauranga Moana iwi and in recognition of the mana of Mauao itself. No reira huri noa i te Whare. Tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I endorse everything that the previous speaker the Hon Mahara Okeroa said in his excellent speech. To the outsider it may seem as though this is all dancing on top of a pinhead—what is in words? But the challenge for the Maori Affairs Committee which as the Minister said worked in a very professional and collegial way was to turn concepts into words that were acceptable to the tangata whenua of Tauranga. 
Time and time again—in the very short time that I have been a member of Parliament—it seems to me that Parliament fails when it grabs hold of concepts and cannot adequately or professionally translate those concepts into words. An obvious example of that is the electoral finance legislation. Government members had a clear aim: they wanted to do in the National Party after the 2005 general election. But when it came to drafting the legislation they shot themselves in the foot because they did not get the words right. As a consequence that legislation is a shambles. The Minister of Justice makes a fool of herself every question time the legislation will give rise to litigation and yesterday we had the Prime Minister almost raising the white flag of surrender by saying that she knew it was a shambles and would have to be sorted out. She was acceding to what the Hon Peter Dunne had said about having a cross-party conference. 
That is what happens when one does not get the words right let alone the concepts. Of course the Electoral Finance Act is ghastly legislation in concept as well. Therefore it behoves members of Parliament as legislators to knuckle down and focus on the words. 
Sue Moroney 
: The Exclusive Brethren wrote this speech. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Instead of cackling away like that Sue Moroney could perhaps listen to what I say because it is about a very important thing that we could all learn from. 
We were dealing in this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill with a total agreement between everyone on the concept that we wanted this particular historic reserve to be transferred back in accordance with agreements made between the Crown and the tangata whenua of Tauranga but the question was how the Crown would retain some kind of residual responsibility. When I looked at the way clause 7 had been drafted my immediate reaction was that this was not just a Clayton’s transfer but it was also insulting. It is worth just focusing carefully on the words because it states that for the purposes of the enactment the reserve “must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown.” 
That is totally unacceptable terminology given the concept of what was trying to be achieved. I know that other members of the select committee such as the good New Zealand First member Mr Paraone said: “Surely to goodness this is a matter where we are agreed on the concept and it should not be beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to come up with a form of words that are acceptable.” Therefore as the honourable Associate Minister said a few minutes ago clauses 7 and 8 were omitted from the bill and a new clause 8 has been inserted. I think it is a very good piece of work and it captures exactly what all the parties intended—that is although the reserve is transferred back to tangata whenua the reserve status is preserved. 
Clause 8 comprises a number of key ingredients so that it remains a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. For that purpose the Minister continues to have the certain functions obligations and powers that the Minister has under the Reserves Act 1977. The Tauranga City Council continues to have a role in this. Importantly however the fact that the Minister retains certain powers does not entitle the Minister to exercise the power under section 26 which is the power to vest the reserve in some other person or the power under section 15 to exchange the land comprising the reserve or part of it. As the Associate Minister said clause 8(3) states importantly “the Crown continues to have in relation to the reserve the rights and obligations of the holder of the fee simple estate (including any obligations in respect of occupational health and safety building or rating liability legislation).” 
Those words capture exactly the concept that everyone intended. I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen on acceding to the wishes of the various submitters and I congratulate the hard-working diligent and amiable members of the select committee on coming up with a form of words that were acceptable. 
The Maori Affairs Committee is a collegial select committee. I do not want the Labour members on that committee to get into trouble because if I say that they are collegial and are good to work with then it could be reported back. Those members could be told to toughen up as people on the Justice and Electoral Committee are told to do. That committee should be a good committee to work on but sometimes it is poisoned by having far too great an adversarial approach to legislation which gives rise to litigation. 
As John F Kennedy said in his inaugural address “civility is not a sign of weakness”. We are a civil bunch on the Maori Affairs Committee—as the member for Te Tai Tonga would agree—but that does not mean to say that we do not knuckle down and do some good work. I think that this bill is an example of good work. I commend the approach of the Labour members on the Maori Affairs Committee to the Labour members on other select committees particularly the Justice and Electoral Committee. If this amiable and collegial approach had been taken to the odious electoral finance legislation then many of the problems we are now facing with that legislation would not have occurred. 
With that little bit of sermonising in mind I join with the previous speakers in supporting the second reading of this legislation. I hope that it can be passed through all its stages. I cannot really see why we could not have passed it through all its stages this afternoon but that is a matter for the Leader of the House. None the less I certainly hope that we get through the remaining stages as quickly as possible. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. E tika ana kia mihi hoki ki a koutou o Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga ara ko Tauranga Moana Nui. Engari kahore ano au i wareware ki te mihi atu ki a koutou o Waitaha. Na reira koutou e matakitaki mai e hakarongo mai hoki tena koutou tena koutou a kia ora mai ano tatou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker. It is apt that I acknowledge you Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga from the Great Harbour of Tauranga. But I have not forgotten you Waitaha as well. So those of you watching and listening as well greetings to you greetings to you and greetings once again to us. 
] 
I preface my speech by acknowledging the tribes of Tauranga Moana who are either watching or listening to this debate. 
There is a saying within Maoridom: ahakoa he iti he pounamu—although small it is a treasure. I make reference to the size of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. It is small in comparison with the many bills that come before this House. It contains only 16 clauses. Although many of us may think that it is not of too much importance I assure members that for the people of Tauranga Moana it is a very very important bill. It is my privilege to take a call on the second reading of this bill. 
Many of the earlier speakers have alluded to what was originally clause 7. I too acknowledge the importance of that clause which has become clause 8. It should be a reminder to Maori groups who are in the process of signing agreements with the Crown. The representatives of Tauranga Moana who appeared before the Maori Affairs Committee indicated that although they were not very happy with a particular provision they had gone ahead and signed the agreement. They actually came to the select committee to seek the committee’s assistance to change that provision. This was not new to me as a member of that committee given that we have had to consider a number of Treaty settlements. I acknowledge that this matter is not a Treaty settlement but there are some similarities in that after the iwi had signed their agreement with the Crown they came before the select committee to seek to change the agreement to what they would like it to be. However due to the collegiality that previous speakers have referred to we all agreed that we could achieve the same thing by changing the wording. I acknowledge the tenacity of the iwi of Tauranga Moana in pushing for this change. 
I also acknowledge Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana who acted at the behest of their elders. Some members of te runanga were not happy to sign but their elders pushed them to enter into this agreement and they did so although they believed that it should not be signed. I acknowledge them because I think that when people take heed of what their elders say even in the face of what they themselves think is right and wrong their showing that respect ought to be acknowledged. Certainly members of Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana exercised that respect. 
I will raise another issue. There was a submission from a group known as Waitaha. I acknowledge the representatives of Waitaha because in comparison with the rest of the submitters they were of a younger generation. I really had respect for the way they presented their concerns about this bill. They did it in the knowledge that many of the people in that same room did not support what they were saying. The way they presented their case was admirable. 
Their cause has not been lost. I will read out clause 14(1) of the bill “Waitaha statement of recognition” which states “The Crown Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga acknowledge the statement of recognition of Waitaha in Schedule 3.” I will also read out schedule 3 so that it is placed in  
Hansard 
 and so that the descendants of Waitaha will know that the efforts of their representatives at the select committee hearing were not in vain. Schedule 3 states: “This statement of recognition reflects the history to which Waitaha subscribes but it does not recount that history in full. Waitaha’s history will sit alongside other iwi and hapu histories and altogether these histories make up the diverse relationships that are attributed to Mauao. 
For Waitaha that place is borne of the occupation of the maunga by Tutauaroa (the son of Waitaha) his son Taiwhanake and Taiwhanake’s son Kinonui. Tutauaroa moved to Otamarakau leaving Taiwhanake to maintain Waitaha’s presence on Mauao. Ngati Ranginui and Waitaha occupied Mauao later followed by Ngai Te Rangi after the Battle of Kokowai. Mauao continues to be an integral part of Waitaha’s history and their tribal future. 
For Waitaha the enduring protection of Waitaha’s ancestral associations and historical connections with Mauao is paramount.” 
The elders the kaumatua and the kuia who appeared before the select committee recognised that connection. They also recognised that they could not turn their backs on the connection that Waitaha was claiming to Mauao. I again congratulate the representatives of Waitaha on the stance they took. 
It is important to reiterate that this bill is not as a result of a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. It stands outside of that process and it will not impinge on the claims that will likely come from the people of Tauranga Moana. 
In conclusion I congratulate all those who were responsible for this bill and I look forward to its third reading. But I ought to say that I support the comment made by a speaker from National that because of the size of the bill there is not any reason why we cannot deal with the third reading now. However there is due process to follow and I am a supporter of due process. New Zealand First certainly supports the second reading of this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kei nga mema Maori o te Whare i te po nei tena tatou. 
[ 
Greetings Madam Assistant Speaker and to us tonight Maori members of the House. 
] 
This time last week a crowd of some 350 people ascended the sacred mountain at the entrance to Tauranga Harbour Mauao. At the peak of the 232-metre-high landmark they were inspired by a korero from a graffiti artist—a legal graffiti artist—called Graham Hoete or “GMAN” founder of the clothing label REPZ and a master of the spray-can. The purpose of the hikoi was to pay homage to the memory of Sir Edmund Hillary. In reflecting on his legacy Hoete told the crowd that “All things are possible to those who believe.” 
As we consider this bill to vest the Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust “All things are possible to those who believe.” might well have been a good byline for documents to transfer the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve from the Crown to Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. It is apparently necessary for this bill to come forward in this way because the Reserves Act 1977 does not provide for a transfer of this nature. 
I suggest that the three Tauranga Moana iwi want to believe that the Crown will demonstrate respect for their mana for their rangatiratanga and for their capacity to uphold the rights and responsibilities of kaitiakitanga. It seems pretty straightforward to me from their perspective—hand back the ownership of Mauao. Kaore i ko atu kaore i ko mai; nothing more nothing less. Would they look after it? Hell yeah of course they would such is the respect that those iwi place on their association with Mauao. Would they look after the interests of all New Zealanders like the Crown says it does? Of course. But in the end if one is the owner—kei a koe te tikanga—that is their business. 
That is what I think Tauranga Moana people are after. The iwi of Tauranga Moana and Waitaha also seek to believe that a healthy relationship can be established between them and the Crown. It is here however that believers may well start to have some reservations. The reason is that for all intents and purposes despite this bill Mauao remains as if it is in Crown ownership. The iwi of Tauranga Moana have not been transferred any ownership rights including the right to at the very least co-administer their own maunga. Instead the nominal owners are specified as the Crown through the Minister of Conservation devolved to the Tauranga City Council. 
Its ownership is presumably different from that identified in the preliminary archaeological survey which reports that the Mauao historic reserve constitutes a cultural landscape representing approximately 600 years of human occupation by Tauranga Moana iwi. The archaeological survey reports the first human settlement in the 13th century the expelling of the Nga Marama people the battle of Kokowai and finally the Ngapuhi incursion into the Bay of Plenty. 
That is 600 years of history prior to the Tauranga City Council. One would have thought that that would give the three Tauranga Moana iwi a special status. Yet nearly a year ago in May 2007 the chair of the Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana the chairs of the three Tauranga Moana iwi runanga and a representative of Waitaha indicated that “The draft agreement continues to impinge on and/or diminish our mana with respect to exercising our rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over Mauao.” 
Although this comment was made while the agreement was in draft form the sentiments are harsh enough to suggest that they represent the exact opposite of the view that was intended in the commitment to building healthy relationships. Here is the rub. This is the consistent and universal tension working against such relationships with the Crown when the alleged rights of the Crown appear as in the case of Mauao to completely stifle the ownership interests of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. 
The most significant point of tension is focused on clause 7 of the bill as other members have talked about which has the effect of the Crown continuing to bear the rights and obligations as if it were the owner of the reserve. The 27 submissions repeatedly addressed their concerns around this clause which retains the general provision in the law that the Mauao historic reserve is vested in the Crown. Submissions variously opposed Crown ownership and council control as I heard when I attended the select committee hearing in Tauranga. The New Zealand Maori Council insisted that the land should be returned to iwi ownership without conditions and without clauses that take it back out of iwi control. 
Colin Bidois from Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana suggested that clause 7 dilutes the fullness of ownership whereas Maru Samuels of Ngai Te Rangi explained that clauses 7 and 8 would work only if there was a joint management structure with iwi. The suggestion from Rahera Ohia of Te Au Maro o Ngati Pukenga that clause 7 be either removed or amended to clarify its application and scope must be given serious consideration during the Committee of the whole House debate as other members have alluded to. 
Another recurring theme was around the mismanagement of communications undertaken during the passage of the bill. Brian Dickson of Te Runanga o Ngai Te Rangi advised the committee that the negotiations led by Te Runanga o Tauranga Moana were ill managed and poorly communicated leading to tensions flaring throughout the rohe. Another Ngai Te Rangi submitter Hauata Palmer reinforced this point concluding that the Crown had used the process to manipulate a preordained outcome creating much turmoil and division along the way. Colin Reeder confirmed these views saying that the process imposed by the Crown had lacked integrity and was fundamentally flawed. 
None of this helps much in igniting public interest that this bill is indeed necessary and can well make a difference. Under the circumstances I suspect that other iwi may well have given up but not the iwi of Tauranga Moana. They will continue to negotiate to listen and to hold strong to the line. They will continue to put forward their views about how this arrangement could work. 
HuikakahuKawe of Ngati Ranginui recommended that useful grounds for discussion might include environmental management commercial development and the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 upon Ngati Ranginui. RaheraOhia raised the question of whether the bill covers intra-Crown payments. The Mauao trustees themselves outlined issues they defined as being outstanding suggesting that for the return of Mauao to have more substance the implications of the Foreshore and Seabed Act must be factored into the discussion as well as issues around resourcing and compensation. 
It is impossible to read through the submissions to talk with the people and to sit and spend time with those who have believed that Mauao will one day be returned to them and not feel their pain and disappointment. As one koroua expressed to me in providing advice about how we might vote: “Ko auakoreroano ara ko te tumanako ka whakahokia mai tomatou maunga tuturu ki a matou” meaning “It’s the same old story. We hope that our mountain will be returned to us.” All things are possible to those who believe. 
I mihi to the iwi of Tauranga Moana who have believed that the entire Mauao historic reserve would be returned and that the process and outcome would uphold the mana of the three iwi. What has been achieved is very much a Clayton’s settlement as referred to by other members—ownership in title only. The Minister of Conservation has an overwhelming role in determining how this maunga will be managed in the future. Despite this and in spite of the inflexibility of the Crown in refusing to agree to any of the solutions put forward by the iwi the iwi have begun negotiations with the Tauranga City Council to establish a partnership management with them. 
The Maori Party puts on record our admiration for the strong resolve and passionate determination of the people. They negotiate memorandums of understanding at the local level to try to improve their situation. They always wanted joint management of Mauao and although it was considered outside the scope of this bill we in the Maori Party recognise the courage of the iwi of Tauranga Moana in moving on. 
Of course we are pleased that the select committee has recommended the removal of the offending clause 7 which spelt out in explicit detail that full ownership had not been provided to the iwi. The jury is out as to whether the new clause 8 is sufficient to restore the faith of the people. But we will support the iwi of Tauranga Moana and Waitaha in their decision to do what they can to advance their own affairs. The Maori Party will always promote the leadership of iwi in doing the best they can for their people often under the most trying of circumstances. It is for these people that we support this bill at its second reading. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I stand as the chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee in support of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I preface my comments by saying that Maori members of the committee obviously have some links and ties to discussions surrounding the whenua and we all declare a conflict of interest because of that. In this case in particular as I was the chair of the committee I reiterated that fact given my links to Tauranga Moana where my whenua is and Matakana Island which lies right beside Mauao Mount Maunganui where my tipuna lie. I recall as a younger lad at the age of 17—about 20-odd years ago which makes me 37 now—running up the Mount as part of a normal routine. I was a bit slimmer then and I think that nowadays I would gently amble up. I wanted to preface my contribution by indicating that conflict of interest. 
The Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill was referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration in December last year. The committee heard the public submissions on the bill in Tauranga Moana and I suppose to that end acknowledged that that was the first time the Maori Affairs Committee had agreed to meet during the adjournment to deal with this bill which shows the willingness of all members in relation to the work on this bill. 
It should come as no surprise that the submissions were overwhelmingly in support of the return of Mauao to Tauranga Moana iwi. Twenty-seven submissions were received and 17 of those submitters appeared before us. They included kaumatua who are also the trustees; the iwi runanga o Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga; representatives of Waitaha; individual members of Tauranga Moana iwi; the Mayor of Tauranga Stuart Crosby; and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. We were especially grateful to hear the views of kaumatua on the bill given their lead role in this initiative and their responsibility on behalf of the iwi as holders of the fee simple estate once the bill is passed. 
The key issues raised by submitters were in relation to ownership rights and obligations as reflected in clauses 7 and 8. The committee has considered submitters’ concerns that clause 7 does not provide for the return of full ownership of Mauao to iwi and that the wording was of concern because it stated that the reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown. It was felt by some that the land was being returned in name only with all rights remaining with the Crown. We recommended that clauses 7 and 8 be deleted and that drafting changes be made to a new clause 8 to incorporate the intent of clause 7. 
Mauao has the status of a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. Mauao comprises three parcels of land which are Crown land over which the Minister of Conservation has certain powers duties and obligations. These include a power to appoint an administrating body to manage and control the reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. A clause is required in the bill to ensure—as the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides—that all general law will continue to apply to Mauao after the vesting takes place. The intention of the clause is for the rights and obligations under for example occupational health and safety legislation building legislation and roading liability legislation to continue to be responsibilities of the Crown. However the Crown cannot know what laws may be passed in future that could have an effect on the owners of Mauao as further rights and obligations could be created under laws that are yet to be made. 
Under the current provision in the bill the Mauao trustees will not bear any of these present or future ownership obligations. If clause 7 is removed entirely significant legal uncertainty will arise concerning what obligations the trustees may bear and what rights they might have as owners of Mauao. We recognise the offence caused by the original wording of clause 7 and have recommended that the intent of the clause be reworded in clause 8 to address this concern. 
Several submitters recommended excluding Waitaha from the bill. We do not agree with the recommendation. It is very clear to us that Waitaha have a relationship with Mauao having resided on Mauao for 700 years and because the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides for Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao to be recognised. We do note however that Waitaha was originally included equally in the proposal. Waitaha supported the final agreement on the basis of the statement of recognition of Waitaha and its ongoing representation at the management level. 
The mayor has indicated that Waitaha’s status in the management of the Mauao historic reserve remains unresolved. Waitaha is represented on the council’s Mauao steering group and has been there for some time but the recent memorandum of understanding reached between the council and the three Tauranga Moana iwi rununga does not currently recognise Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao. 
There are clearly some issues to be ironed out around the management in future including the matter of the involvement of the trustees. We do not however consider that any further changes to the bill such as attaching the memorandum of understanding are the appropriate way of addressing these. As we considered the submissions we discussed the suggestion that the bill be amended to provide for joint management over the Mauao historic reserve by the Tauranga City Council and the holders of the fee simple estate. The management of Mauao as a historic reserve has emerged as an important issue in this process. We considered a range of information including the nature of the negotiated agreement which is for the retention of the current management arrangements; the costs and infrastructure required to manage control and administer Mauao as a historic reserve; and the memorandum of understanding reached between the council and Tauranga Moana iwi which reflects their aspirations in relation to Mauao. 
We also heard from the Mayor of Tauranga City who considered that iwi representation on the council’s Mauao steering committee effectively provides iwi with joint decision-making status right now. In accordance with the Mauao management plan and under the Reserves Act 1977 we heard from the Historic Places Trust which submitted that a draft proposal is in the pipeline to register Mauao as a wahi tapu in view of the very large number of sacred and historical sites on and around the maunga. As the council’s Mauao management plan is due to be reviewed in 2009 we are satisfied that any changes will only further enhance the protection of Mauao. As the mayor pointed out the next logical step would be to formalise the Mauao steering group as a full standing committee. 
Finally as chairman of the Maori Affairs Committee I would like to recognise the efforts of the submitters in coming before us and sharing their views. I also appreciate the contribution of the members of the committee. As previous speakers have indicated it was certainly a pleasure to be able to get consensus in resolving the issues that were brought before us by submitters. I also acknowledge the sponsor of the bill the Hon Parekura Horomia and to that end I stand in support of the second reading of this bill and its amendments. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Tihei mauri ora. Tuia ki runga tuia ki raro tuia e herenga tangata no reira tena koutou. Ki te Whare e tu nei tena koe. Ki a Papatuanuku kei waho tena koe. E te Mangai tena koe. Ki nga rangatira o te Whare Paremata tena koutou. Ki nga hoa o te Whare Paremata tena koutou. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Ko Chris Tremain toku ingoa. Ko Tatara toku maunga. Ko Tutaekuri toku awa. Ko Kel Tremain toku papa. Ko toku papa he tangata rongonui he All Black. Ko Pam Tremain toku mama. Ko Simon raua ko Mark oku taina. Ko Angela toku hoa wahine. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Behold the breath of life. Thread it above thread it below interweave mankind. Therefore greetings to you. Greetings to the House standing before me Mother Earth outside Madam Assistant Speaker parliamentary leaders and fellow parliamentarians. Greetings greetings and greetings to you all. My name is Chris Tremain. Tatara is my mountain and Tutaekuri is my river. My father is Kel Tremain a famous person an All Black. Pam Tremain is my mother. My younger brothers are Simon and Mark. Angela is my wife. Greetings greetings and greetings to you all 
.] 
Madam Assistant Speaker you may wonder why in rising to speak to the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill I begin with my mihi and acknowledgment of some of my whakapapa. You may ask that question. In that mihi I mentioned two places that are very significant to me. The first is Otatara which is a mountain—a small mountain for that matter—that sits behind Taradale and is the place where the Otatara Pa used to sit many many years ago. It has now been purchased by the council and sits there in perpetuity. 
The Tutaekuri River flows quietly beside Otatara and is also a place of significance to me and where I was born and grew up. 
Just 2 weeks ago I had the pleasure of walking to the top of Te Mata Peak as part of a remembrance for Sir Edmund Hillary. Standing on the peak and looking around Heretaunga—Hawke’s Bay—at all the different land features that are part of Hawke’s Bay I could see out to the east Waimarama Beach and Cape Kidnappers and to the west the Kaweka Mountains. From up there I could see Otatara and the Tutaekuri; to the south Kahuranaki and to the north Waipatiki Beach and Ahuriri in Napier. All of these places have significance not only to me but to many many people in Hawke’s Bay. They are significant to many Pakeha and obviously to many from Ngati Kahungunu and other iwi from that region. Many of us have lived in New Zealand for more than a generation and have very strong ties to the land—the whenua. For many of us and certainly for Maori the land is our point of reference. It is the place that we know we can return to and we feel at one with. It really provides our sense of identity. When we sit in a pub overseas on our OE say in London or Australia we miss not only our families—our whanau—but features of the land. That is what we remember and sometimes pine to return to. 
Mostly these features are in public ownership and access is largely available to all. Where it is not many Kiwis would like to see some of those features returned to public ownership and tangata whenua in particular would like to see them returned to ownership by tangata whenua in fee simple title. Many of us want access to those areas. When I stood on Te Mata Peak most of the features I saw and just mentioned were in public ownership and that gave us the ability to access those features. 
Such is the case in Tauranga at Mauao—Mount Maunganui—and this bill returns an important taonga to the iwi of Tauranga while still guaranteeing access to it for all New Zealanders. It is critically important to many Pakeha that we still have unfettered access to those iconic features. That is especially important to me. I understand the significance of those features to local Maori—Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. These tribes embarked on a journey when that land was put into Crown ownership in the 1880s and they have sought to have the fee simple title brought back under their ownership. I acknowledge and respect what the Crown has achieved here not only returning the fee simple title to the iwi but also maintaining access for New Zealanders going forward. I feel that is critical. 
The Mauao land in Tauranga is iconic also to Pakeha. The translation of Mauao is “caught by the dawn” and that is interesting. Mauao is an iconic maunga on the isthmus of the peninsula. The mountain is 232 metres high and has a 3.4 kilometre track around the base— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I thought it was 3.6 kilometres. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: My reference says 3.4. It is a 45-minute walk to the top. Maybe the previous speaker Dave Hereora took a little bit longer to walk it. 
Sue Moroney 
: He was running. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Running! It is a national playground and has amazing platforms to view out to sea and all around. We can see why it is so iconic to New Zealanders when we know that in January alone some 110000 people either walked on the track or visited that taonga. Throughout last year 700000 Kiwis visited that place. So it is important real estate. It is important to all Kiwis not just to Maori. 
Sue Moroney 
: Are you going to carve that up as well? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is an important piece of real estate that is very important to all Maori. Many Pakeha see the mountain as iconic and part of their identity. The bill shows that we have been able to transfer fee simple title to Maori while maintaining ongoing access for all people. That is a good thing and I support it. 
A similar situation arose a few years ago at Bastion Point in Auckland. In 1990 Ngati Whatua o Orakei reached a settlement with the Crown of their historical claims over the Orakei block including Bastion Point after the Waitangi Tribunal had issued the Orakei report in 1987. As part of that settlement ownership of the reserve lands at Bastion Point and Okahu Bay was transferred to Ngati Whatua o Orakei with Auckland City and Ngati Whatua o Orakei jointly managing those lands for the use and enjoyment of the public of Auckland. The interesting thing is that that transfer was done many years ago but importantly it has allowed unfettered access by Aucklanders and all New Zealanders to a key iconic piece of real estate which they are able to access in perpetuity. I think that transfer of fee simple title while still maintaining access is where a partnership has been achieved and that is an extremely good thing. 
The way I see it this bill is a benchmark for moving forward in terms of key iconic and culturally significant landmarks. 
I have no problems at all with places of outstanding cultural significance being returned to tangata whenua conditional upon unfettered access being available to all Kiwis. I see Bastion Point as a case in point where that has been successfully achieved—Aucklanders have had no problems with accessing it. 
Most Kiwis increasingly identify with landmarks here in Aotearoa. As I mentioned in Hawke’s Bay there are all sorts of different landscapes and features and Kiwis increasingly relate to the land and wish to care for it. To this end I say that although tangata whenua may claim first right they do not have the only right. They do have first right but Pakeha need access to these key bits of land. In this bill we have seen a partnership in that respect. I think that this land is going to be enhanced by the relationship between iwi and the council. As my colleague pointed out recently there is the ability for ongoing and better management by the iwi up there which is fantastic. 
I stand in support of the bill and I close with the whakatauki I commenced with that in short means: “Bind it above bind it below bind us together.” In this case I think we have been able to achieve that with a partnership on Mauao in Tauranga. Tuia ki runga tuia ki raro tuia te herenga tangata. 
[ 
Thread it above thread it below interweave mankind 
.] 
Bill read a second time. 
Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Part 1 Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow upon the heels of the completion of the second reading of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill with the Committee stage of this bill. Part 1 deals with changes to the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act. This of course is an omnibus bill that amends several pieces of legislation from the portfolio of the Minister of Maori Affairs. As I say the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act comes under scrutiny here with some changes to the legislation. There are four changes but the two most important are the name change for the Maniapoto council of elders and the proposals to formalise a new regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour. The name change issue is dealt with under clauses 4 and 7. 
These amendments give effect to a request from the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board to update its trust board legislation by reflecting a name change for its council of elders. I touched upon this in my second reading speech yesterday but I think it bears commenting on here. The Maniapoto council of elders requested these changes. It was concerned that the current name Te Mauri o Maniapoto as the council is currently referred to under the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act suggests that it holds the mauri of Maniapoto. As Maori members and others in the Chamber will appreciate this is an unusual use for that word. The council of elders is of the view that the mauri of Maniapoto is instead held by all the marae of Maniapoto and it requested of the Minister or his ministry maybe both that the name be changed to Te Kaumatua Kaunihera o Maniapoto—the Kaumatua Council of Maniapoto. All of the board obviously was in agreement with that. 
This in essence appears like a housekeeping change but when we go to the thrust of why the board members wanted that change in terms of the use and the embodiment of all of the meanings behind the word “mauri” it is understandable that this is more than housekeeping for them—it goes to the very heart of the way their elders want to describe themselves. As I say both clauses 4 and 7 effect this name change. 
The other issue of note in Part 1 is in clauses 6 and 13 which see the establishment of a new Maniapoto Regional Management Committee. Again these amendments give effect to a request by the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board to formalise a seventh regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour. Maori trust boards are empowered to establish committees. The Maniapoto Maori Trust Board currently has six regional management committees that represent the interests of 43 Maniapoto-affiliated marae. Under section 6 of the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act a representative from each of the regional management committees sits on the trust board and has full voting rights in trust board matters. 
In 2003 five Kawhia Harbour marae came together to request a separate regional management committee to represent them. This proposal grants that request. Although the committee was asked to look more closely at this change because a couple of submissions were made to us that would suggest the change was not appropriate all was well when we asked Te Puni Kokiri to have a look at the matter again. As it turns out the proposal will go through so the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board will have its membership increased from 14 to 15 and the number of regional management committee representatives on the trust board will increase from six to seven. 
These amendments will formally provide for the representation of the new regional management committee on the trust board. With that representation of course comes first of all a representation on behalf of one’s constituency; second access to funding; and third the right to vote on all Maniapoto Maori Trust Board matters. So it is very important for this group of five representatives from the Kawhia Harbour marae that this change is effected because as I say it adds to their representation on the tribal trust and gives them a voice in the overall affairs of the trust. 
My colleague Chris Finlayson yesterday mentioned how he and I had recently spent a very pleasant and productive afternoon with the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board—it very kindly hosted us—and this legislation being before us was obviously a matter for some small discussion. It also gave a plank for us to touch on other matters that are in the trust board’s domain right now including its Treaty settlement negotiations or maybe the lack of them. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. On behalf of New Zealand First I want to make a contribution to this particular bill and talk to Part 1 which covers clauses 3 to 8. I will elaborate on some of the things that the previous speaker touched on particularly in reference to the name change. Being a Maori I can understand the reason for wanting to change the name from Te Mauri o Maniapoto to Te Kaumatua Kaunihera o Maniapoto because in terms of the word “mauri” itself—if I can just use the Maori phrase to describe this word: “he kupu tino hohonu”—it has more than just an ordinary meaning. “Mauri” is talking about the life force the life essence of in this case Maniapoto. For a group of people to have placed on them the responsibility for the mauri of their tribe may be a little bit beyond what one would expect so I can understand the need or the reason for wanting to change the word to “kaumatua”. I think that that in itself actually reflects the importance that kaumatua can play in the life of their iwi in these days and I certainly want to support the reason for the change. 
I also make the point that this change was made at the request of the board. I can understand why the board would want to make this request given the deep meaning that the word “mauri” has and to place that sort of responsibility on kaumatua on those whom we would regard as mere mortals is something that I do not think should happen in spite of whatever their status—their mana—within their tribes might be. New Zealand First certainly supports the intention of the name change. 
I want to refer to the membership of the board. The bill states that the board will consist of 15 persons. In particular clause 6(c) states: “1 member appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs nominated by and representing Te Arikinui;”. I would have thought that Te Arikinui had the authority without having to cede to a Minister of the Crown with all due respect and without demeaning the office of the Governor-General to have a direct responsibility in terms of nominating his or her representative on this board. I initially had the same thought with regard to Te Kaumatua Kaunihera o Maniapoto but then I could not put it in the same position as that of Te Arikinui. Then again who am I to contradict what quite clearly the members who represent Maniapoto through their trust board had asked to be done? 
I cannot see anything else in Part 1 that we should be concerned about other than to say that unlike other Maori trust boards this board will continue to maintain its entity and its responsibilities for its iwi. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I will start off by acknowledging in Part 1 of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act and to say that Te Puni Kokiri and the Minister of Maori Affairs have been working with the trust since 2003 on the proposal to establish a new regional management committee to represent the marae of Kawhia Harbour and the five marae that seek the establishment of a new regional management committee for the Kawhia Harbour region. The trust board has organised regular hui to consult with the marae members on the proposal and to provide a demonstration of sufficient support for a new regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour. 
Earlier I raised an issue in relation to this matter and I will recollect my thoughts on it and share with the Committee the information that some submitters opposed the bill’s proposal to establish a new regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour to represent Te Mahoe Pa and Mokai Kainga marae. On hearing from these submitters the Maori Affairs Committee asked the officials to seek the views of the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board which requested this amendment and the views of representatives of the two marae at issue. It was clear to the committee on hearing from the trust board and representatives of Te Mahoe Pa and Mokai Kainga marae that these marae wanted to be represented by a new regional management committee and that the submissions received were not supported. To that end I acknowledge the request of the Minister of Maori Affairs that the committee consider correcting its report to accurately describe who was consulted on this issue. I gave a commitment that I would take that request back to the committee for its consideration. 
The committee in its deliberation yesterday considered this matter. After some robust discussion we felt that the commentary as presented to the House was not in need of correction and the basis for that generally surrounded one’s interpretation of the report. But the committee felt that if there were a need to rectify this issue then there would be a number of options at our disposal to do so. Of those options the committee felt that it would probably make good sense to raise the matter in the Committee of the whole House stage and to say that in considering this concern the select committee felt that the issue came back to one’s interpretation of the commentary and where that sat. 
To that end the select committee felt that the issue would not impede the progress of the bill and it is my understanding that there was support and that there continues to be support for this bill. Again I suppose it was an issue surrounding the point of whether there was a need to revisit the situation by bringing back to this House an amended version of the commentary. As I have stated earlier the committee’s consensus decision on the matter was that we would raise this issue at the Committee stage and formally subscribe to the fact that we have agreed that there was no intention to misinterpret the findings within that report and that it was left to one’s individual determination as to where that interpretation sat. 
Overall we are still quite pleased with this bill as it is in the Committee stage particularly with Part 1 and we are pleased with its progress. I stand in support of the bill. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on this part includes debate on schedule 1. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. It amends that Act to specify first of all a minimum voting age of 18 for Maori trust board elections. It ensures that past Maori trust board elections are not invalid because of under-age voting. It also reflects changes to the annual payment to be made by the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board under a new agreement relating to Lake Taupo. 
Clauses 10 and 13 deal with the minimum voting age. The amendment seeks to align the minimum voting age—under the Maori Trust Boards Act it is 20 years and under the Maori Fisheries Act it is 18 years—in order to eliminate statutory compliance issues for those Maori trust boards that must comply with both Acts. Not all Maori trust boards are in that category but some are and this issue was raised from the outside by a legal representative of some of the affected Maori trust boards. Five trust boards also act as trustees of their iwi’s fisheries settlement entity and they are subject to both their own Act—the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955—and the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. In practice this means that when iwi members vote for members of their Maori trust board they are also voting for the trustees of their iwi fisheries settlement entities. 
There is confusion over who is eligible to vote in these elections. Adult beneficiaries or those who are entitled to vote are not defined in the Maori Trust Boards Act and therefore section 4 of the Age of Majority Act applies making an adult beneficiary under that Act a person aged 20 years or over. In contrast the term “adult” is defined in the Maori Fisheries Act as a person aged 18 years or over. I suppose some young people will be a little bit alarmed to find they will have to wait until they are 20 before they are classed as adults in this respect when for most purposes in our everyday lives as New Zealanders 18 seems to be the more consistent accepted age. 
As has already been said there are some compliance issues for those boards that have to comply with both Acts. Clause 10 will remedy the issue by inserting a definition in the Maori Trust Boards Act that an adult beneficiary is a person of 18 years of age or over. That is a very simple solution. The clause also provides that the new minimum voting age will apply to a Maori Trust Board’s first election after the commencement of the amendment. Clause 13 will update regulations to include that. 
The 15 Maori trust boards were consulted on the proposal. Nine supported the amendment and six did not respond. The Ministry of Fisheries and Te Ohu Kaimoana were also consulted and they support the proposed amendment. It is a very sensible change again requested from outside Parliament and outside the bureaucracy. It is designed to give better overall management for those iwi who are now managing both their traditional assets under their trust boards’ legislation and their fisheries assets under the Maori Fisheries Act. 
The other matters of note in the bill are the changes to the annual payment to be made by the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. This follows the settlement that was forged between the Crown and Tuwharetoa in September 2007. It updates issues surrounding the balance of property rights held by the board in relation to Lake Taupo. The genesis for that was the vesting of the Lake Taupo bed and its tributaries in Tuwharetoa in 1992 under the National Government. This is a similar arrangement to the one we have just finished talking about in relation to the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill where the land in question—in this case the lake bed—is vested back in the name of the iwi concerned. All public access to the lake will be maintained as previously as it always was but there will be a recognition of certain rights now and there will be some division in terms of income made from the lake as well. Responsibility for the daily management of Lake Taupo and its bed is held by a combined committee of both the trust board and officials. 
A colleague of mine was talking about this earlier in relation to how we as New Zealanders can progress these issues where iwi want more than the symbolic return of land as we saw in the Mauao case. Iwi want the land to be vested in them but that is not in any way to impinge on the rights of their fellow New Zealanders. And that is the case here. The changes in this part are designed to address the balance of property rights issues that were not addressed in 1992 and to reflect certain payments from the Crown to the trust board in relation to the rights revenues and rents from the lake. 
I think these issues are definitely more than housekeeping matters as the Minister has so often referred to them in the amendment to the Maori Purposes Act. They go to the heart of that Act. They look minor on the face of it but in fact they are very very important. Like the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board and the amendments there these amendments are also very important to the trust boards concerned in terms of minimum voting rights and in respect of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. 
It is also very important that something that was started in 1992 is concluded now is tidied and that overall the enhancement of the relationship between the Crown and the iwi concerned is progressed even further. That is what we particularly the Maori members want to see in this Chamber. I think most of us if not all of us are here to progress these matters—not just on behalf of Maori but because they are good for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. I think the speech given by my colleague Chris Tremain demonstrates the level of understanding that has gone on over the last 30 years in particular with regard to Maori claims and Maori rights and it can only be applauded. We should not forget that New Zealand is watched by other nations that have indigenous peoples who also pursue their rights in the same way that Maori people do—maybe not as well sometimes but maybe that says more about the psyche of New Zealanders and ultimately their fairness and their wish to see things made right eventually. Luckily Maori are very patient people and ultimately something good and just comes out of these changes. These are good changes; we support them. Thank you. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. I want to follow on from the previous speaker and remind the Committee that Maori do not have a mortgage on passion. Perhaps that is why we in New Zealand First are more focused on what is best for New Zealand. 
In supporting this Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) and in talking to Part 2 where changes are recommended to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 we say that it is important that the democracy that the rest of the country is able to enjoy applies to the beneficiaries of Maori trust boards. These amendments are made to accommodate the five Maori trust boards that have taken on the responsibilities outlined in the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. I am not quite sure whether this will be limited to just the five Maori trust boards as the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission has continued to allocate fishing quota. I know that over the past week or so two further iwi groups Te Aupouri and Ngati Ruanui have received their allocation. I am not quite sure whether the Te Aupouri Maori Trust Board will take on this responsibility. If it does then this bill would need to apply to it as well. 
In respect of the interpretation of “adult beneficiary” we have often made reference to the importance of young people and I know that in the description of young people age 18 is included. Be that as it may it is important in terms of the Maori Fisheries Act that the entitlement for 18-year-olds to vote also applies to their Maori trust board. This part of the bill certainly provides for that. 
The other issue in Part 2 is in respect of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. I will not say too much about that other than to say that it is important that the arrangement that the board has made with the Crown is carried out in a manner that does not conflict with the intention of that payment and that the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board is able to carry out its duties according to the law of the land. 
A question was raised in the select committee consideration of the bill about validation and whether this change would affect those decisions that have been made by some boards that have carried out their elections. If a beneficiary aged 18 is able to vote under one particular Act it just makes sense that there should be some continuity for that age group. This part of the bill certainly provides for that. The question was raised as to how that links in with the Maori Fisheries Act. This part certainly addresses that issue. As the report from the Maori Affairs Committee said should there be any concerns about that then the costs of validating those elections—those decisions made by the trust boards as a consequence of their election process—should be met by the Crown. Although we might think that this is an exception in terms of validating previous elections should there be some concern then people should not be afraid to carry on with their concern because of the cost issue. I would recommend that if that were to occur then beneficiaries and trust boards alike should carry it through. 
On the fact of it the only changes to the Maori Trust Boards Act are those I have outlined. We should give support to this part. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate includes clauses 14 to 18 and schedules 2 and 3. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975—legislation as important as any in the history of this Parliament. 
I think the Waitangi Tribunal was a creation of the Hon Matiu Rata in 1975. It was probably the only constructive contribution he made to political life but it was a very important contribution. In 1984 the jurisdiction of the tribunal was extended to cover historical claims dating from 1840. Throughout the 1990s there was an outstanding performance by the National Government as the Rt Hon Doug Graham and the Rt Hon Jim Bolger achieved wonderful things by settling a large number of claims starting with the fisheries claim in 1992. 
Since then there has been a big gap when nothing has been done. This afternoon I do not want to focus on that big gap. I see the member for Otaki going red with embarrassment—rightly so—because it is an appalling performance by a do-nothing Government. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the Government doing too much or too little? They can’t keep a straight line on it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I want to focus on the changes that were introduced by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and I suggest that Sue Moroney sit quietly and listen. Clause 15 amends section 4. For the benefit of Ms Moroney I say that section 4 establishes the tribunal. Section 4(2) sets out the composition of the tribunal. The tribunal is to be chaired by a judge or retired judge of the High Court or the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and that position is currently held by a distinguished judge Judge Joe Williams. 
Mr Paraone has introduced a member’s bill to try to deal with some alleged conflict of interests but that is not germane to this debate. Even though his bill is misguided I am not going to dwell on it because that would be contrary to the Standing Orders. Instead I am going to focus on subsection 2(b) of section 4 which is proposed to be amended by the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2). This subsection states that the tribunal shall consist of “Not less than 2 other members and not more than 16 other members to be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs made after consultation with the Minister of Justice.”  
What is proposed by clause 15 is that the number of persons who may serve on the tribunal be increased from 16 to 20. The National Party says that this is a good change because there is a lot of work still to be done by the tribunal. Although the tribunal has published a large number of very good reports over the years there is still work to be done. In order to achieve justice in a speedy manner there needs to be more members serving on the tribunal. We have no problem with that proposal. 
As I was reading section 4 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act in preparation for the debate I came across subsection (5) which I will mention just briefly. The Ministry of Justice is required to: “furnish such secretarial recording and other services as may be necessary to enable the Tribunal to exercise its functions and powers.” The point I make—and the National members made it in the Maori Affairs Committee—is that it is all very well to increase the number of tribunal members but the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice have to ensure that the tribunal is properly resourced not just in human resources which of course are important but in other resources so that the tribunal can carry out its functions and powers. There has to be an end to the stop-start hearings that the tribunal has had to endure. That can happen only if the Ministry of Justice properly resources the tribunal which has not been properly resourced for years. 
The second section to be amended is section 6 which on the face of it is a rather dry legalistic section but which actually reflects the history of Treaty settlements since 1992. It is a very important section. Rather than simply deal with it in a perfunctory way I want to go through it in a little bit of detail for the benefit of the Committee. The section deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to consider Treaty claims. The idea is that the section is amended to provide that when a claim is settled the jurisdiction of the tribunal to inquire into claims in respect of those matters is ousted and that the tribunal will not have jurisdiction to inquire or further inquire into any recommendation arising out of that particular claim. 
It is proposed that subsections (8) to (32) of section 6 be deleted and that instead of constant amendments of this section references will be put in a schedule of the Act. I think that is a very sensible way of drafting. How that escaped the draftsman’s eye some years ago—that it would be a sensible way of drafting—escapes me frankly because it is a bit of a nuisance to have to amend the Act every time there is a settlement. But that is the way it has had to be done for a number of years until now. 
When one goes through section 6 one sees for example that subsection (7) which is not to be schedulised deals with the great fisheries settlement of 1992. Well I remember studying that subsection when I used to do work for the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and when there were attacks on the settlement and on the method of allocation. We had to determine whether the claims could properly be made or whether the jurisdiction of the tribunal was ousted. 
Subsection (8) deals with the great Tainui settlement. Subsection (9) and a few subsequent subsections deal with the great Ngai Tahu settlement. It goes on through the settlements of the last few years. Whenever there has been a settlement there has been an amendment to section 6 to deal with the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Another example is section 6(22) which deals with an aspect of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Act 2003. 
So there we have it. It is a sensible provision. It is a rather clumsy way of drafting to have to have all these amendments tacked on. As we can see we are now up to subsection (32). It is a much more sensible legislative mechanism to have the substantive section and then have enactments to which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is subject to be referred to in schedule 3. As I said one can expect a lot more references in schedule 3 over the next few years as a John Key - led Government gets on with the incredibly important business of negotiating settlements. I bet the Committee— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: If they can make their minds up. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —and I bet the member for Otaki that in 9 years’ time our record will make him look redder than ever. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I have a couple of comments in relation to Part 3 of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2). In previous debates on this bill members of the Maori Affairs Committee have all congratulated each other on the collective work we have done and on the nature in which we have been working and continue to work. From time to time as we have just witnessed one member jumps out of the loop and expresses some negativity about the Government. But at the end of the day collectively the committee worked very well in dealing with the issues surrounding this bill. 
Part 3 is about an extension of a discussion the committee had late last year about the proposed closing date of 1 September 2008 for historical Treaty claims and about the Government’s intention to have them resolved by 2020. What I am alluding to is that Part 3 is about the Government’s intention to resource that process by increasing the number of Waitangi Tribunal members from 16 to 20. 
I do think it is necessary as we will be faced with a lot of negotiations surrounding claims that we are mindful that we are adequately resourcing the process so that we end up with settlements that are enduring. It is I think quite important to make sure that that issue is brought to the Committee’s attention. This is about adequate resources and the Government’s intention to ensure that we follow that path. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. I am talking to Part 3 of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) which makes changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The main point of this part is to increase the number of members on the tribunal from 16 to 20. I think that is laudable but I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia whether the 16 current positions have been filled. Has there been a full appointment of 16 tribunal members? There is no point in increasing the number to 20 if we have not filled the 16 positions. I must say that this very point has been overlooked during the course of this debate. 
The other point I want to make about the increase of the tribunal membership from 16 to 20 is that although it might be intended to increase the resources this bill does not say that. I just point that out. There is the expectation that if we increase the size of the tribunal then the resources must follow. Quite clearly as the closing date for the lodging of historical claims approaches it is important that we have a tribunal that is suitably resourced to deal with the claims and to do so in a timely manner without prejudicing the durability of those settlements. 
I ought to say though that in order for the tribunal to carry out its duties it must give due regard to what the Act says are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and of course I cannot go on without making reference to those undefined principles that are now appearing in a whole raft of legislation that emanates from this House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Introduce a bill. 
PITA PARAONE 
: New Zealand First did try to introduce a bill. Unfortunately we did not get the support of the House not least of all from the member for Otaki. However as the Minister of Statistics he might be able to produce some figures that will give some validation to our claim. I just wanted to point that out because I think that that is a very important part of this bill and I hope the Minister will take a call on it. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on Part 3. I really want to echo the point the honourable member Pita Paraone has just raised. I have certainly raised it on previous occasions. One of the provisions in this part which is an important measure—it is important though only if we recognise what ought to follow—provides for the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal to be increased from 16 members to 20. The point has been made that increasing the human resource—that is the people—is great but yes I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us whether the current 16 places are filled right now. If they are not then what is the point of this measure? I certainly can see the point of it given the way National will deal with Treaty settlements when we get into power which will be quite soon. There is no point in just raising the membership of the tribunal if we do not have the financial resources to accompany that. The Minister needs to tell us whether he will bring a bill to this House or at least get some policy going that will see a funding provision for the daily fees for four extra members and for the increased sittings that one might assume will accompany the increase in membership. Also there will be reading fees and report writing fees. If the Minister knows anything about these things he can show it by taking a call and telling us that he has all those matters in his sights and that yes he will get some additional people and that yes he knows exactly what funding resource and support is required to make this increase in membership a reality. It is very important and I wait with anticipation for the Minister to take a call. Perhaps he can tell us that he has put in a Budget bid for this very thing. 
The membership of the tribunal is to be increased by four members which is a small number but it does require a certain amount of additional funding. We do not want to have to conclude that this is just a bit of window dressing and that the Government is trying to look like it is doing something because it has made provision to appoint more of its mates to another organisation. 
The Waitangi Tribunal is an important organisation. Over the past 9 years the tribunal year on year has had to scale back its forecasts for its hearing days and scale back the number of reports it can produce in relation to the hearings. Basically part-way though its financial year the tribunal has had to rejig the activities it thought it was going to carry out and in the end found it would not be able to fulfil them. 
I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. These are very important matters and I would very much request that the Minister stand and give some assurance to members of the House and to New Zealanders who frankly are in support of seeing this process completed in a just durable and timely way. He needs to assure us that he has all these things in his mind and that the addition of four members if required—and we still do not know whether the current 16 places are filled—will result in a flow-on of additional resources and support to make sure that the tribunal is able to increase the speed with which it can deal with very very complex issues. Thank you. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 The Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) is important legislation. It brings together a number of amendments that are critical to Maori and each part shows that. As a result this bill’s passage into law will be a significant milestone for Maori and it will be well appreciated. 
For example in Part 1 the amendments formalise the establishment of a seventh regional management committee in Kawhia . This amendment will allow the five marae in Kawhia to cluster together to ensure that they fully participate in decision making related to their area. Part 2 provides for a new annual payment from the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board under a new agreement relating to Lake Taupo—something that has been outstanding for a long long time. This is an important event for Ngati Tuwharetoa who as a result of this bill can get on with business and realise the potential of their settlement. This part of the bill will also allow as speakers have pointed out our rangatahi to be fully involved in trust board matters by allowing 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries to vote in trust board elections. Once this bill is passed our rangatahi will be legitimately involved in deciding who will manage the governance entities and the management of and distribution from the fisheries. 
Part 3 will provide the Waitangi Tribunal with up to four additional members. This Government takes the role of the Waitangi Tribunal in our nation’s progress towards the settlement of Treaty claims very very seriously and we are well on track with that. I really want to mihi to that great member Matiu Rata; I think anybody who is nonsensical enough to talk ill of the dead needs to get his or her facts or marbles together. It is this commitment that has led us to respond quickly to iwi. If members travel the roadways of this nation they will understand that several iwi are in tandem with the Government that the Treaty settlements are well progressed by the Deputy Prime Minister in his role as the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and that iwi are flocking in to get finality and to be as serious as this Government is about achieving that. 
This bill represents the Government’s latest efforts to ensure the Waitangi Tribunal is adequately resourced by providing it with the people to power it. This Government has increased the tribunal’s funding—I would like those members to listen to this—by 60 percent since 2001. The previous Government thought ill of the tribunal and did not even give it any funding. Most recently the Government in Budget 2007 injected a further $7.7 million into the tribunal over a 4-year period. This latest boost saw the funding of the tribunal rise by a further 25 percent. That is how serious we are about it. 
In relation to the membership of the board I say tena koe to Mr Paraone for his very supportive korero. There are currently 15 members of the tribunal. One member has resigned—Sir Paul Reeves—for a host of reasons and we are currently appointing a new member to replace him. 
Hon Member 
: Who’s that? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It will not be the member. It is very very serious and important that we get the other four members because there is a lot to do in this business. A hang of a lot is going on whether one is in Heretaunga talking about one’s awa Tutaekuri or whether one is up in Tuwharetoa revelling in what the Government has done in relation to Taupo-nui-a-Tia. Wherever one is this Government is serious about the tribunal and the finality at the end of September brings things forward. We will most certainly cherish that Maori are appreciated in this great nation. Kia ora tatou. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia for responding to my question. However I ask a further question in relation to the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal. Can the Minister tell us how many appointed members sit in on each hearing? If there is only one member per hearing then is the Minister suggesting that 15 hearings are going on around the country at the moment? If that is not the case then I seek clarification about this issue because I think it is very important. 
We are talking about the timely consideration of Treaty of Waitangi claims and although this amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is a step towards that by increasing the membership of the tribunal the effectiveness of this increase will be awarded only by the number of sittings that take place. I wonder whether the Minister as a matter of courtesy might take a call in response to that question. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call on this part. I suppose the Maori Affairs Committee’s consideration of the amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was not highlighted much in its discussion but I think it is necessary that we mention it in the Committee stage. Section 277 is amended to indicate that it does not apply to Maori incorporations that had gross revenue of $25000 or less for their most recently completed financial year. I think that amendment is a necessary one. It is basically to tidy up an inconsistency that surrounds a typographical error in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and an erroneous cross-reference that inserted a new provision into the wrong section of the principal Act. I did think it was necessary that I take a call to ensure that that is highlighted to the House. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Clause 1 deals with the title and clause 2 deals with the commencement. The commencement in a very technical way rests upon the title itself. Clause 1 states that the title of the Act will be the Maori Purposes Act (No 2) 2007. Well we have long gone past 2007; we are now in 2008. Obviously the Act cannot commence from 2007. Presumably it will come into force sometime in 2008 and the procedures will ensure that the title of the Act becomes the Maori Purposes Act (No 2) 2008. If I am wrong I am sure the Minister in the chair Parekura Horomia will take a call to that effect. 
I guess that generally speaking one might say the matters that have been dealt with in the changes set out in the bill have been to enhance the purposes of Maori people activities and things. As so many of the proposals in this bill were proposed by Maori themselves I guess this is an apt enough way to describe them. National obviously supports both clauses 1 and 2 provided the appropriate and necessary change is made. 
Just before I take my seat though I want to make a comment in relation to the purposes being served under Part 3 relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. I say again—I have said this in this House before—that Matiu Rata is the person whose legacy the Waitangi Tribunal is and I pay tribute to him. He was a wily politician and a pretty wise person in my view. He appointed Chief Judge Durie to the Maori Land Court—one of the first judges and the youngest judge to be appointed to the court—and around the same time he set up the Waitangi Tribunal to deal with historic claims and to look at breaches by the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi. 
In doing so he saw the difficulties that might be caused by a treaty that is in two versions a Maori version and an English version. Although the majority of Maori signed the Maori version obviously there is still an English one which understandably Pakeha New Zealanders look to in the first place. Knowing the symbolic nature of te reo Maori—the Maori language—and seeing there could be problems between what Pakeha understood the Treaty to be and what Maori understood it to be Matiu Rata knew that a reference to the terms or provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi itself was not necessarily going to bring us to where we know we are heading. So the term “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” was introduced right at that stage back in 1975. The promoter of that bill was Matiu Rata and as I have said he was very wise and wily at the same time. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Chris Finlayson was denigrating him earlier. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am sure he was not. He would not have been denigrating him. 
I raise this matter—and it is one of the purposes of the bill so it is very much within the title clause—because Pita Paraone again made reference to the bill that he introduced to the House; again another bill to do with Maori things— 
Pita Paraone 
: National didn’t support it. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No we did not support it. Now in discussing the role of Matiu Rata and what I think was behind his thinking when he introduced the term “the principles of the Treaty” the honourable member Pita Paraone might come to know why I certainly would not support a change to the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. I say the title is apt and we support it. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I just say for the interest of the people of New Zealand who are presently in gridlock on the motorways of our country and are listening to this debate that we are debating the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2). The title is the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) and one could presume that there was a “Maori Purposes Bill (No 1)”. I will just explain what happened to the No. 1 bill. Some members of the Maori Affairs Committee believe that it went a little bit too far in terms of the omnibus nature of these bills. I say to the New Zealanders who are listening to and watching this debate that although the changes being made to one or two of the pieces of legislation in this bill are small they are very important changes for Maoridom and indeed for New Zealand. 
Previous speakers have made reference to the proposed changes in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and have made reference to the author of that legislation Matiu Rata. I am sure that if he were with us today he would accept the challenge of defining what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are as that term is articulated in a number of the Acts of Parliament affecting our country. 
I think that because of the omnibus nature of this bill it is only proper that the title Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) be retained. Kia ora. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Amendment Bill the Maori Trust Boards Amendment Bill the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3)  
divided into Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Amendment Bill| Maori Trust Boards Amendment Bill| Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill (No 2)| Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3)|  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper197. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 9 April. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 I speak in support of the second reading of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. I know the Hon Tariana Turia will be taking a call on this bill as well. 
The Government Administration Committee spent a long time on this bill trying to come to grips with the issues that confronted it particularly the level of submissions received from people who are very interested in access to this important information. It is a constant struggle to strike a balance on access to this data. If the information is the records of the births deaths marriages and relationships registrations of people who are part of someone’s family or ancestry then those are the sorts of statistics that that person will be very keen to know about. But at the same time in a modern world where technology makes access to these records so much easier we want to protect them to make sure that these records are not being used inappropriately. That is a genuine balance. 
Sandra Goudie 
: The Government stuffed it up! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I hear the Opposition spokesperson—I am not sure what Mrs Goudie is a spokesperson on—saying that this was some sort of stuff-up. I do not regard a select committee process that results in people’s genuine views coming forward and a bill being altered as a result of what the public have to say as being anything wrong. I think it is one of the great functions of our particular New Zealand Aotearoa parliamentary democracy that the Government of the day introduces a bill to Parliament and any member of the public or interest group can come along and not only make a submission on it but also sit right in front of our lawmakers and put their point make their case and explain how this legislation is going to impact them. 
As a side issue I say that one of the things we find most humbling when foreign visitors come to visit our Parliament is that they all want to know about our select committee process because it is the way that the ordinary person can make a change to legislation. 
I think this bill is a classic example of where the Government Administration Committee has proposed key changes that take into account what a lot of the genealogy groups said. In all of our communities—I think of my own constituency of Otaki and the towns dotted throughout that electorate—there are people who take a real interest in the history of their family. There are people who like to trace things right back—hundreds of years in many cases—and the World Wide Web makes that even more of an option for people. 
As I said the select committee had to struggle with the dangers that that presents if somebody through identity theft or identity fraud is able to use somebody’s details in order to try to make a statement of claim of who they are to access some entitlements that they might not be able to such as passports social security entitlements and all manner of things where people are required to present birth certificates. Simply enrolling in tertiary courses is another example of where birth certificates are required. As for death certificates there is not a huge point in imitating those for any purpose but they do show the circumstances of people’s deaths which is very useful for people when they are charting the history of their family. If people visit an old cemetery somewhere it is quite interesting to look around and read about people who have died a long time ago the kinds of conditions they lived in and the ages they died at compared with what modern science is able to do for us now. 
The bill amends the existing Act. It changes its name to recognise that other forms of relationships now have legal recognition; that comes into the title of the bill. The other aspect of the bill that is very important—and we make the point in Parliament tonight—is that the changes to the bill mean that any member of the public can still access that registry information. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.