Hide Rodney: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7997. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Once again I find myself in complete agreement with the Hon Shane Jones. Maybe I will not use his great oratory to reinforce the point but I say that what we have here is good Government making atrocious policy and also following an atrocious process. I just want to pick up the point that the Hon Shane Jones made which I think is a very serious one for this Parliament to consider—that is the Government by this decision in this Parliament is saying that there is now no such thing as a full and final settlement. This bill is saying that any settlement can be reopened and relitigated if the Government ever makes a decision that might somehow have a cost on an iwi that has had a settlement. Everyone knows that there was no underhand business in the settlement of the Ngai Tahu deal but back then we never knew we would have an emissions trading scheme. God knows we never thought the country would be so stupid! But there we go. This means that if any Parliament makes a decision about the Resource Management Act or anything like that with an impact on an iwi that has had a settlement then suddenly the iwi will come back to Parliament there will have to be some cash go across to it and there will have to be some resources go across to it because presumably the Government says there is no such thing as a full and final settlement. That is one of the real tragedies of what we have seen here today. 
I think we all know in this Committee that that is not true. We know that the Government is not doing this because of the principles of the Treaty; it is doing it because it needs five votes. The Government has gone across to the Maori Party and asked what is necessary to get its support through all stages of this bill. That has meant that they have had to construct the idea that somehow a Treaty settlement has been breached when in fact it has in no way been breached. That is not me saying that; that is Crown law saying that. So this is simple pork-barrel politics which means that we have bad policy and bad process. 
There has also been a transfer of wealth to a particular iwi. Pre-1990 forest owners have not been treated in the same way so the settlement is actually for just five iwi. Maori owned a lot of forests pre-1990 but unless those Maori are part of the five iwi they will completely miss out like everyone else. So it is not particularly a race issue. It is not about Maori benefiting to the exclusion of Pakeha; it is actually about five iwi benefiting to the exclusion of all other Maori and of all other New Zealanders. We have a policy there that is not about affirmative action for Maori or anything or a special case for Maori; it is a special case for just five iwi and it is saying that all the other iwi can go to hell. It is saying that all the other forest owners can go to hell—they will not get a deal. 
We also have National agreeing to take its emissions trading scheme and insert into it the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I ask members to ask themselves what on earth the principles of the Treaty can inform us about climate change. Nothing actually—nothing! And National knows it. Why does National know it? Because in 2005 National pointed out that we could not have the principles of the Treaty in education legislation or in resource management legislation because what on earth was it informing decision makers about? It was nothing because the principles had not been defined. We do not know what that means; its vague and woolly thinking is setting us up for endless litigation. 
So we now have a poorly constructed emissions trading scheme that has been hacked around in the select committee with businesses trying to make it somehow palatable by having a pound of flesh taken off everyone equally. Then the scheme has been hacked around to get the support of five iwi so that they benefit but no other iwi in the country does. On top of that we have inserted the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
No one in the National Government is prepared to stand up and say what those principles are and to put them on the record so we know what this amendment is all about. I would quite like a member from the Maori Party to take a call to say what the principles are. I am looking at my friend the Hon Parekura Horomia and I am asking him how many principles there are. Are there three are there five or are there 10? Let us say there are 10. We need to stand up and say: “Here are the 10 principles of the Treaty and here is what that means for climate change policy.” That is what I would like to hear. 
Why could we not just have a clause that states: “to give effect to the Treaty”? That was what was signed. Actually I would vote for that because the Treaty is about citizens being equal in New Zealand it is about respecting every New Zealander’s property rights Maori included and it is about having one Sovereign—not a bunch of five iwi who can run the Government ragged because they can somehow determine five votes in this Parliament. That is what the Treaty is about. Why do we not put in “Let us have regard to the Treaty” not some airy-fairy principles that can never be defined? The National Party knows that. Why? In 2005 it was National’s campaign promise. But if we jump ahead 4 years we see that not only is National not ridding us of the principles of the Treaty in all the legislation on the statute book but it is reinserting it into legislation on the emissions trading scheme. So I say that we have atrocious policy we have an atrocious process and we have a process that is empowering and enriching five iwi to the exclusion of other Maori. 
What else do we find? Not surprisingly when we go to the Stuff web page we find that the Maori Party’s ruling council is in revolt. We do not know even now whether the Maori Party will finally vote for this legislation because members of its council are saying publicly that the Maori Party should not do so. I ask the Government why it does not take this legislation with its amendments and send it to a select committee for public scrutiny and for parliamentary scrutiny so that all Maori can see what it says—not just the five iwi but all Maori—and more particularly so that every New Zealander can look at it and every member of Parliament can have the debate so that we do not have a decision that was hatched between the Maori Party the five iwi and this Government 18 minutes before it was made public and the day before it was being passed into law. In God’s name how can that be good lawmaking process? It cannot be. It is a disgrace.