Source: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Daily/d/3/8/49HansD_20110317-Volume-670-Week-68-Thursday-17-March-2011.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 02:21:29
Document Index: 105457047

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 1', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'arty 4', 'arty 9', 'arty 9', 'arty 4', 'art 4', 'art 4']

New Zealand Parliament - Volume 670, Week 68 - Thursday, 17 March 2011
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) for Thursday, 17 March 2011 [PDF 365k]
Journals of the House for the week beginning Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Volume 670, Week 68 - Thursday, 17 March 2011
[Volume:670;Page:17381]
Acting Leader of the House: Next week it is the Government’s intention to complete the Committee stage and third reading of the Appropriations (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill, and make further progress on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
: I ask the acting Acting Leader of the House whether it is the Government’s intention to take the third reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill on Thursday, and I ask him to give a guarantee that that will not be done under urgency.
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence): It is the Government’s intention to make progress on the third reading.
Prices—Minister’s Statement
Minister of Finance: When he said recently “where the Government does have some influence, we are working hard to keep prices low”, which prices was he referring to?
: I was referring to specific examples, such as interest rates. We have worked hard to control Government spending, so that we do not put upward pressure on interest rates. Floating mortgage rates are about 5 percent below where they were at under the previous Government. With regard to the emissions trading scheme, we have put in place a system that halved the costs of the emissions trading scheme. In electricity, we have increased competition so that households do not face a 72 percent price rise, as they did up to 2008. We have worked hard to bring the out-of-control ACC scheme under control, so that levies do not have to keep increasing.
Hon Annette King: If, as he claimed on Sunday, the Government is working hard to keep prices low, why did he allow Government-controlled prices such as car and motorbike registration, ACC levies, early childhood education fees, GST, and the cost of doctors’ visits, to name but a few, to go up at a time when economic commentators are saying households could face a period of significant misery in New Zealand?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have had to strike a balance between recognising that pressure on households on the one hand, and cleaning up the mess left by the previous Labour Government—for instance, the car licensing system was tens of millions of dollars in deficit. We are doing our best to close that massive deficit in the car licensing system without passing on all the costs to licence holders.
Hon Annette King: What action will the Government take to control petrol prices now that they have reached $2.15 a litre, which is something National demanded that the previous Government do when the price reached $2.03 a litre, and which is something that while in Opposition National thought obviously the Government could do something about?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unlike the previous Labour Government, we do not claim to be able to control everything. Consumers and households are doing their best to deal
with rising oil prices. As the member knows, the Government does not have too much influence over Colonel Gaddafi, but maybe the Labour Party does.
Hon Annette King: What action will the Government take to reduce the cost to New Zealand families of milk, which has gone up by 37c a 2 litre bottle, given that John Key said in 2008 that families had to ration milk to their children because of the price and that the then Labour Government should do something about it?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, New Zealand is a beneficiary of high commodity prices. More people want to pay us more for more of our product than ever before, and some of those prices are reflected in domestic prices.
Chris Tremain: What is the outlook for inflation, and how does this compare with past inflation?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, there has been a spike in inflation because of the increase in GST, but, if we look at Reserve Bank forecasts for this calendar year, we see it projects there will be inflation of 2.3 percent; in 2012, of 2.2 percent; and in 2013, of 2.5 percent. Over those 3 years, the rate in each year is about half the rate that inflation was at in 2008 when Labour left office, which is why no one believes the Labour members when they complain about rising prices.
Hon Annette King: If New Zealanders are better off following the tax cuts and the wage increases, as he constantly claims, can he explain why people are feeling the impact of food, grocery, accommodation, insurance, and petrol rises at the fastest rate in almost 20 years, and does he believe that people are just making it up when they say they are facing a struggle at this time?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: They feel those prices because they are out there every day doing their shopping and paying their bills. They have not all had significant wage increases, but they have had after-tax increases in their wages. The member seems to be going down the track of, I think it was, the
Herald on Sunday, which tried to claim that inflation was at the same kind of rate it was at back in the mid-1980s when it was actually 17 or 18 percent. Current inflation is actually around 2 to 3 percent.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Effect on Government Finances
Minister of Finance: What are some of the likely impacts on the Government’s finances of the Christchurch earthquake?
: First of all, as the weeks go by we are getting better information about the costs of the earthquake, but a couple of things are clear already. The first is that the earthquake is likely to delay slightly the New Zealand Government’s return to Budget surplus, and, secondly, that meeting the Government’s share of the immediate earthquake costs will require quite a substantial front-loading of Crown debt in the next year or two—that is, to meet costs such as the wage support package, the rescue and recovery costs, and transitional housing. It means the Government will have to borrow more over the next couple of years. Therefore, it is important that we put in place a plan to get our debt back to acceptable levels.
David Bennett: What will be the impact on likely fiscal deficits and net Crown debt as the Government meets the immediate costs of the earthquake?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: When the Prime Minister delivered his Prime Minister’s statement earlier in the year, he said that the Government intended to get back to Budget surplus in 2014-15. Now, with the effect of the earthquake and the need to borrow to fund those costs, the surplus is more likely to occur in 2015-16. It looks as though our deficit before gains and losses could be more than 8 percent of GDP, which amounts to around $16 billion. In December we announced a revised forecast of $11 billion, which
is likely to increase. Net Crown debt is also likely to rise, from around the forecast 28 percent of GDP to around 30 percent in 2014.
Hon David Cunliffe: What percentage of the additional expected $4.9 billion increase above the forecast in the operating deficit before gains and losses for this year is a result of the stalled economy, which New Zealand has been suffering from since as early as June 2010, well before the earthquake hit Canterbury?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I could not give the member an estimate of the exact proportion, but a significant proportion of the increased deficit this year will be just the immediate cash costs of the earthquake. Some of it will be reduced tax revenue because of the stall in economic activity in Christchurch, and some of it—who knows, maybe a quarter or a third—could be because of a slower economy, which was happening regardless of the earthquake.
David Bennett: What will be the basis of decisions about the Government paying its share of earthquake costs and ensuring that net Crown debt returns to pre-earthquake levels?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will continue with its considered and consistent way of making decisions on economic issues. The Government has made the decision that because it is impractical to find short-term, large-scale savings in public spending, we will be borrowing to cover the costs of the earthquake. Any other changes we make in Government spending will be made on their merits rather than just because we need to fund the earthquake recovery.
Hon John Boscawen: Does he think that revenue raised from mining schedule 4 land would mitigate the financial effects of the Christchurch earthquake; if so, what actions will the Government take to explore mining on schedule 4 land?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has explored that option. There is no doubt, though, that the effort that has been put into getting petroleum and gas resources on the list for exploration companies could yield more revenue in the future, and that would help us repay the debt that we will incur in the next year or two on the Christchurch reconstruction.
Hon John Boscawen: Does he think that the comments of the Minister of Energy and Resources on 26 August 2009 that no mining on schedule 4 land had potentially “denied significant opportunity for economic benefit at both a national and regional level” are more relevant now that the economy is struggling with the effects of the Christchurch earthquake?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not the Government’s intention to revisit the conclusion of the debate on schedule 4, but that does not mean we cannot have a strong and growing economy in the future. In fact, in the regions high commodity prices will begin spilling over into the domestic economy in the next 12 or 18 months, and, despite the fact that they cannot mine schedule 4 land, I think that part of the economy will start growing with some strength.
Economic Development, Acting Minister—Statements
Acting Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements on economic development?
: I stand by all statements I have made as Acting Minister for Economic Development.
Hon David Parker: When he said in Parliament yesterday: “We want to invest in innovation—Labour opposes that.”, was he referring to the research and development tax credit that Labour introduced and National scrapped, or to National’s other cuts to innovation?
Hon DAVID CARTER: I was referring particularly to the Primary Growth Partnership, which has been in action now for 18 months. We have seen $475 million worth of projects get under way. That sort of innovation spending is serious spending. It is not like the phoney schemes that Labour used to announce.
Hon David Parker: When the Minister said yesterday: “We intend to improve skills—Labour opposes that.”, was he referring to the $55 million that his Government cut from industry training in the last Budget?
Hon DAVID CARTER: I was referring particularly to the work of my colleague the Hon Anne Tolley, who is trying to address the serious situation in New Zealand where a large number of schoolchildren leave school without the ability to adequately read and write. That is the legacy that that member and his Government left.
Hon David Parker: When the Minister said yesterday: “We need to improve trade opportunities.”, was he referring to the need created by his Government’s lack of an adequate economic plan, which has resulted in unemployment increasing by over 50,000 people since he took office, and the second recession—National’s recession?
Hon DAVID CARTER: No. Again, I was referring to the excellent work by my ministerial colleague the Hon Tim Groser and the work he is doing on trade negotiations with Malaysia, Hong Kong, the Gulf States, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Korea, and Russia.
Hon David Parker: Why, instead of ineffectually trying to blame others for the Government’s failure, will he not take responsibility and admit what many business commentators are saying—namely, that the second recession is National’s responsibility and that its management of the economy is lacklustre and failing?
Hon DAVID CARTER: I note that when Mr Parker raises the many business commentators, he never manages to mention them by name, so I suspect many of them are his left-wing, loony mates.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Accident Compensation Claims
Minister for ACC: How many claims has ACC received since the tragic earthquake on 22 February and what steps has the Government taken to facilitate prompt compensation for those seriously injured?
: As at this morning, 5,907 claims had been received. These claims included over 3,000 soft tissue injuries, 1,010 lacerations, 437 fractures, 419 neck injuries, 183 head injuries, 47 burns, and six amputations. The lunchtime earthquake created uncertainty about whether injuries were workplace or non-work accidents. The difference determines whether the employer or the employee meets the cost of the first week’s compensation. The Government has decided, through a special Order in Council for ACC, to pay this first week, which benefits both employees and employers and removes any debate at this difficult time.
Dr Jackie Blue: Has the Minister received any estimates of the costs of accident compensation claims from the 22 February earthquake; if so, are these costs likely to impact on current and future levies for the scheme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The 22 February earthquake will be the accident compensation scheme’s largest-ever single event involving claims. Its latest estimate of the total number of claims is 7,500, and this has enabled an update on the estimated lifetime costs, at approximately $200 million. This estimated cost needs to be considered in the context of claim costs per year of about $3 billion. ACC has worked very hard over the past 2 years to improve its financial position, and I am hopeful that the cost of the earthquake claims will be able to be met without any levy increases.
Chris Hipkins: Will the cost of providing the first week of income compensation under the scheme, which he has announced, be funded through the ACC work account; if not, how will it be funded?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For those who were seriously injured, who will be eligible for that extra week of compensation, that funding will be taken from either the earners account or the work account, in exactly the same way that the future week’s compensation will be. I note that a higher proportion of claims than the overall average for ACC are actually in the work account. That is not surprising, given that a large number of people would have been at work at the time of the earthquake, and given the number of people injured in the central business district of Christchurch, where there would have been a higher proportion of working people.
Dr Jackie Blue: Are foreign nationals who were injured in the 22 February earthquake and the families of the deceased eligible for support from accident compensation, and what endeavours have been made to ensure that they are well informed of their entitlements under the scheme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. At the core of our unique no-fault, 24/7 scheme is automatic entitlements for everyone, including overseas visitors, as the trade-off for the loss of the right to sue. Foreign nationals who have been injured are eligible for emergency care, treatment, and rehabilitation in New Zealand and for lump-sum compensation for significant injuries. Income compensation is also available if the foreign nationals were working and paying tax and ACC levies in New Zealand. Families of the bereaved are eligible for a funeral grant. Dependants of the deceased may also be eligible for a survivor’s grant and income compensation if the deceased was working and paying taxes and ACC levies in New Zealand. The accident compensation scheme does not differentiate based on which country a foreign national comes from, nor should it.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Entry into Central Business District Red Zone
Minister of Civil Defence: What is the basis for according priority to entry of the red zone in the Christchurch central business district?
: The priority that the national controller accords is safety first, and needs second.
Hon Maryan Street: How many business owners and residents are still unable to access their offices and homes in the red zone?
Hon JOHN CARTER: I do not have that information to hand. The member can put the question in writing if she wishes to find out that information.
Hon Maryan Street: Then how does the Government explain its priorities to the people of Christchurch and the business owners of Christchurch, when repeated access for the Prime Minister appears to be taking precedence over access for business owners and
central business district residents?
Earthquake, Christchurch—Government Support for Non-governmental Organisations
Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support is the Government giving to non-governmental organisations in Christchurch affected by the earthquake?
: A lot of hard work has gone in very quickly. Funding coordination and facilities have been provided. On the Friday directly after the earthquake the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and I had a conference call with 17 major non-governmental organisations to work through what support is needed and how we can help. To help we have also hired the Christchurch netball clubrooms at Hagley Park for non-governmental organisations to use as needed.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Rugby World Cup Matches
Prime Minister: What role did he or his department play in the decision to shift the Rugby World Cup quarter-finals from AMI Stadium to Eden Park?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister for the Rugby World Cup) on behalf of the
Prime Minister: Under the terms of the host union agreement, all decisions relating to locations and venues for Rugby World Cup games are the province of Rugby World Cup Ltd, a subsidiary of the International Rugby Board. With regard to the decision to move all Rugby World Cup games from Christchurch, the International Rugby Board, through Rugby World Cup Ltd, publicly signalled its wish to consult other stakeholders, including the Government. This consultation occurred through the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, who discussed these matters with the Prime Minister. With regard to the decision to select Eden Park as the alternative quarter-finals venue, the Prime Minister understands that this decision was made by Rugby World Cup Ltd on the recommendation of Rugby New Zealand 2011, on the basis of considerations outlined by Mr Martin Snedden yesterday. The Government was informed, but not consulted, in relation to that decision.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Prime Minister’s office receive a report on or before 7 March that made it clear that there would not be sufficient accommodation in Christchurch for the quarter-finals?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I would need to check on which reports were received on which dates. But I can say that reports were received continuously in relation to accommodation from two different sources: firstly, Ministry of Economic Development
officials were asked to assess the situation and report to the Government from time to time; and, secondly, Mr Snedden, as the chief executive of Rugby New Zealand 2011, made his own assessment, which was reported to the Government from time to time. To be more precise, I would need to check those reports.
Hon Trevor Mallard: When did the Prime Minister become aware that an in principle or provisional decision had been made to shift the quarter-finals to Auckland before Rugby World Cup officials began their trip to New Zealand?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Prime Minister was not aware that any decision was made, as asserted by that member. The Prime Minister was aware that officials from the International Rugby Board were coming to New Zealand for the purpose of meeting the other stakeholders, formally consulting, and then making a formal decision in relation to the games scheduled to be played in Christchurch.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did the Prime Minister, as recently as yesterday morning, hold out hope to the people of Christchurch that the quarter-finals would be held there, when an informal decision, as the Minister has just replied, had been made that they would not?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Prime Minister was acting on the advice of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. The Minister for the Rugby World Cup was told on Monday of this week that the board of Vbase, the Christchurch City Council - owned company that administers AMI Stadium, was receiving a briefing from the engineers who had done their scoping work over the previous days. That meeting, I repeat, occurred on the afternoon of Monday this week. On Tuesday of this week the Minister for the Rugby World Cup went to Christchurch to meet Vbase, to receive details of that report and to enter into discussions, and on the following day—yesterday—the parties all met, including the visiting International Rugby Board executives, to make the final decisions.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Why was the Prime Minister not involved in the announcement of the decision to shift the quarter-finals from Christchurch to Auckland?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Prime Minister has enormous confidence in his Minister for the Rugby World Cup. He was aware that that Minister was keeping himself closely informed of developments in Christchurch, and was visiting Christchurch on Tuesday. The Prime Minister would not have been aware in time of the meetings taking place yesterday to shift his timetable in order to be there, if he had wanted to. But his attendance might well have been taken by his Minister for the Rugby World Cup as an indication of a lack of confidence—which would have been disappointing.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Who, if anyone, advised him that attending to matters in his room was a higher priority than attending Parliament while questions on this matter were being dealt with yesterday?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I think that at the heart of the member’s line of questioning is the suggestion that somehow the decisions should have been made sooner and announced sooner. I want to repeat what I have said publicly. The people of Christchurch, who take great pride in their rugby prowess, have suffered a significant tragedy. The decision to take away from Christchurch all of the Rugby World Cup games was made most reluctantly by all of the parties who were consulted by the International Rugby Board. For the member to suggest that somehow that decision, which was indeed hurtful, should have been made without all of the evidence being assembled and properly considered by those parties is, frankly, an insult to the people of Christchurch.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very long answer to a question that was not asked. It was a very clear question as to whether the
Prime Minister was advised not to attend Parliament yesterday and to stay in his office. That question was not answered.
Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister wishes to answer it further, I will sit down in a moment. But let me point out that it is against the Standing Orders to make any reference to the absence of a member from this House. I did not rule the question out of order, because I wanted the Minister to have the opportunity to handle it in the way that he saw fit. I do accept that he did not answer the particularity of the question, but the question is a pretty marginal one, anyhow. If the Minister has anything further that he wishes to add to it, I do not want to prevent him from doing that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to review the tape. The question was very carefully drafted. It gave no indication of whether the Prime Minister accepted that advice, if it was received.
Mr SPEAKER: That is a very fine line that the member points out. The implication of the question was that the Prime Minister was not present in the House. But I do accept the point the member makes that the question did specifically ask who had advised the Prime Minister—I cannot remember the exact wording. If the Minister could deal with the actual particularity of the question, that would be helpful.
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Prime Minister is perfectly capable of making decisions about his own diary and timetable without advice. Right at this minute the Prime Minister is extremely busy attending to important matters of State that are the result of some very tragic events that have occurred in New Zealand in recent times. That causes the Prime Minister to think very carefully about the allocation of his valuable time.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he personally deal with all the paperwork received in his office on this issue, or did he treat it, as he claimed to have done with the BMW issue, as a matter for his chief of staff to take responsibility for?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Prime Minister, as I indicated in my primary answer, has taken considerable advice from his Minister for the Rugby World Cup on this matter. That Minister has been closely engaged in dealing with the parties over recent weeks, and, as appropriate, has seen fit to inform the Prime Minister of developments as matters have proceeded.
Hon Annette King: Can the Prime Minister explain why the Hon Steven Joyce, who answered questions on this issue in the House yesterday after the announcement was made, said on radio yesterday morning that no decision would be made for 2 days?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am not familiar with the particular quotation that the member refers to, but I can say the Minister of Transport was answering questions yesterday, as I understand it, on behalf of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, who was, I can confirm, consulting relevant parties in Christchurch.
Corrections System—Private Sector Investment
Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made toward the Government’s commitment to encourage private sector investment in the New Zealand corrections system?
: I am very pleased to report that three private sector consortia have been invited to tender for the provision of a new men’s prison at Wiri through a public-private partnership. The new facility will ensure that there are enough beds to cope with the forecast growth in prisoner numbers and the need to replace ageing prisons. The three consortia are led by experienced international prison management companies and each one includes a major New Zealand construction partner. A number of other New Zealand firms are members of, and
advisers to, the consortia. It is expected that a final contract with the successful consortium will be in place by July 2012.
Jacqui Dean: What benefits will the new prison bring to the local community and to the wider region?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The 960-bed prison is a major project for the Auckland region and will bring significant economic benefits to the local community. It is expected that the development will inject approximately $1.2 billion into the region’s economy over the next 30 years. The construction and ongoing operation of the prison is expected to sustain 1,900 jobs and inject approximately $100 million in wages and salaries into the construction sector.
Earthquake, Canterbury—Trade Skills Training Policy
Minister for Tertiary Education: What specific policy changes has the Government made to increase the number of apprenticeships and other building skills training programmes since the September Canterbury earthquake?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the
Minister for Tertiary Education: Following the September earthquake the Government first ensured that there were sufficient funded places to meet immediate demand for trades training. Government agencies commenced work with the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce to develop skills requirements for the rebuild. Following the obviously much more damaging February earthquake the Tertiary Education Commission and other agencies, both Government and non-Government, are revising workforce planning and are in the process of mapping available provision and capacity from tertiary education institutions, private training establishments, and industry training organisations. We will see a move from other disciplines into trades that will now be in higher demand and we will increase places for trades training as required.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does that mean that he has taken papers to Cabinet specifically suggesting an increase in the number of apprenticeships and other building skills training programmes since the September earthquake?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: No. As far as I am aware there is still capacity there. In fact, the reason that the Minister is not here is that he is at Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology today, where they are already saying there is capacity for trades training and they could take people as of today. They ask people to get in touch with them about that.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does the increase in demand for tradespeople in Christchurch following the two devastating earthquakes, which the Minister referred to, mean that the Government will restore the $55 million it cut from industry training last year, or does it still believe that funding for training will be underutilised?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is important that we go through this step by step. At the moment a consortium of businesses in Christchurch is getting together to analyse what skills will be needed. I know that the Minister has also been talking to the Minister for Social Development and Employment, and through Vote Employment they have been doing a skills analysis of what will be needed. As those analyses are done—without getting ahead of ourselves as to what the need will be—there should be a true assessment of that need.
Hon Darren Hughes: When will the House know whether there will be an increase in the numbers of actual apprenticeships and of people involved in other building skills training programmes, given that the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation was saying before the two Christchurch earthquakes that demand for
building and construction workers was likely to increase dramatically if the country came out of recession?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: No one is under any illusion that there will not be a demand for those skills; there will obviously be a demand for them. We are analysing the capacity and what will be needed. We are doing that through a step-by-step planning process.
Dairy Industry—Dairy Wholesale and Retail Milk Market
Minister of Commerce: Will he use his powers under Part 4 of the Commerce Act 1986 to call for an investigation into the dairy wholesale and retail milk market, following the release of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s review of the domestic milk market in New Zealand; if not, why not?
Minister of Commerce: The Commerce Commission can, of course, on its own initiative undertake an inquiry under Part 4, or an enforcement investigation if it has concerns. In respect of the Minister’s powers to initiate an inquiry, that capacity under Part 4 of the Commerce Act is related to concerns about monopolies. There would need to be a pretty tough test applied to make an inquiry justified.
Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that competition in New Zealand’s dairy wholesale market is limited by the fact that there are just two major players, Fonterra and Goodman Fielder, and that Goodman Fielder is required to purchase all its milk from its competitor, Fonterra?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will be aware of the history of the structure of our domestic milk market. Going back to the formation of Fonterra in the early 2000s, there was agreement at the time to limit Fonterra’s capacity to be a domestic monopoly. Fonterra was required to sell some assets at the time, and for most of the last 10 years I think we have all been generally happy that there has been a sufficiently competitive domestic milk market. But clearly Fonterra has an interest in ensuring that the domestic milk market does not undermine its export strength.
Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that a company that controls around 95 percent of the market for dairy products has a virtual monopoly on the market and therefore has no incentive to minimise prices; if not, why not?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure whether it controls 95 percent of the domestic market. It certainly controls a very significant proportion of the export market. There have been ongoing discussions in the context of dairy regulation between the Government and Fonterra about issues such as the transparency of milk pricing. I think we are all aware that New Zealand consumers must be protected from the potential for dominance of the market by Fonterra, and I believe up until now that both the previous Government and the current Government have acted to protect consumers.
Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that the fact that we have a virtual milk monopoly selling to a supermarket duopoly may be contributing to the high price of milk and requires further investigation; if not, why not?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The arrangements around Fonterra certainly need to be kept under scrutiny continuously because there is always the potential that such a large company could influence the domestic market. However, there is not a lot of evidence that they have been behaving in a monopolistic manner. The market seems to have worked reasonably well over the last 10 years but I think it is natural that when prices rise, consumers are asking the question and we need to be able to demonstrate to them that they are protected.
Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that in a concentrated market dominated by a very small number of big players there needs to be scrutiny of how retail prices are set, so that consumers can be confident that the prices they are paying are fair?
Rahui Katene: Is he aware of the advice from the company Miraka Ltd, the majority of which is Māori-owned, that it saw the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Commerce Commission as playing a kaitiaki role in terms of ensuring fairness within the system, and what assurance can he give the House that fairness for consumers will be prioritised to protect New Zealanders from suffering further price increases on dairy products such as milk, cheese, and butter, which have already increased in price by 19.7 percent on average over the past 3 years?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Miraka, as do others, would expect the Commerce Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to be guardians of the consumer interest, and in this circumstance the Commerce Commission has the power to initiate an inquiry if it thinks there are grounds for doing so. I would say that an increase in prices of itself is not evidence of monopolistic behaviour. In this case it is plausible at least to believe that the sharp increase in export prices for dairy products is the main reason for the increase in the domestic milk price. If there is significant evidence that the price is being manipulated, then the Commerce Commission has the ability to inquire into that.
Sue Kedgley: Given growing consumer concern about the high price of milk, does he agree that an investigation is needed to see whether there is any evidence that high milk prices are a result of either insufficient competition in the sector or a dominant player abusing its market position and passing excessive margins and costs on to New Zealand consumers?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, the Commerce Commission has the power to initiate an inquiry if it thinks there are grounds for it. A Minister can potentially initiate an inquiry. In both cases an increase in prices is not evidence in itself of market manipulation. But if there was significant evidence, then either the Minister or the Commerce Commission, I am sure, would consider it.
Sue Kedgley: Has he seen claims by farmers that they receive less than 30 percent of the price of the milk; and does he not think, therefore, that there ought to be a Commerce Commission investigation into what makes up the remaining 70 percent of the retail price?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a time-honoured tradition among farmers to complain about the small proportion of the total price that they receive, and it has been going on for as long as I can remember. I do not expect that it will ever change, regardless of the market prices. But, again, I do not think that that in itself is evidence that the market is being manipulated, but we agree that we need to be very vigilant when there is such a major company with a large market share. If there is evidence that a company is manipulating the prices against the interest of consumers, then the Commerce Commission has the capacity to look into that.
Women’s Affairs, Ministry—Minister’s Support for Independence
Minister of Women’s Affairs: Does she support the retention of the stand-alone and independent Ministry of Women’s Affairs?
Minister of Women’s Affairs: I support the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. However, the Government has made it clear that it is focused on achieving
greater value and excellence out of public services, so all Government agencies will continue to be under scrutiny. Kia ora.
Carol Beaumont: Why did she fail to rule out the merger of the ministry with another department, and state on
that she was not concerned about the ministry, because the main aim of the National Government is that women manage their own initiatives and the Government is there to support?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly stand by that statement. I also refer to the Prime Minister’s statement, where he said: “this Government is building better outcomes from public services by being clear about New Zealanders’ priorities, by minimizing waste, scaling up what works, getting rid of what doesn’t …”.
Carol Beaumont: What advice has the Minister sought from her ministry about jobs and training for women in Christchurch?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are certainly looking at what the needs of women there are. The Minister has spoken to the Minister for Social Development and Employment, particularly about work for those who are stuck at home and are having problems with childcare and things as well.
Carol Beaumont: Does she see the rebuild that is required in Christchurch as an opportunity to make significant progress on the ministry’s goal of getting more women into traditional trades; if so, what action is she taking to ensure this happens?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: A woman can handle a hammer just as a well as a man and there is certainly room for them in jobs in Christchurch.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Agricultural Sector—Establishment of Fellowship Programme
Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently made to progress agricultural greenhouse gas research?
: Last week Mr Groser and I were pleased to announce that as part of New Zealand’s efforts with the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases we have established a major new programme. The Global Research Alliance Senior Scientist Award will support scientists from alliance countries to undertake exchanges on research programmes into agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation. Those programmes last for 6 months. This is a great example of the alliance getting down to the challenging task of tackling agricultural emissions.
John Hayes: What is the aim of the Global Research Alliance Senior Scientist Award?
Hon DAVID CARTER: It is a practical step aimed at finding the scientific solutions to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. It will build capability within the New Zealand science sector in this important area, and allow greater collaboration between research communities right across the globe. It is just another example of the substantial effort this Government is putting into developing practical options to enable the agricultural sector to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Parliamentary Complex—Operation of Facilities Beyond Usual Sitting Hours
: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are probably aware that the Committee sat beyond midnight last night voting on Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. During that time the air conditioning to the Chamber was turned off and the lighting in the corridors became darker. Given the Government’s intention to proceed on the bill, if the
Committee is sitting beyond 6 o’clock this evening voting on Part 4, can we have an assurance that catering facilities will be available for staff and members?
Mr SPEAKER: In respect of the air conditioning and the lighting in the corridors, the matter has been drawn to the attention of the Parliamentary Service to try to ensure that it does not happen again. In respect of the refreshment facilities, there are standard times when those facilities are provided, and there is not a lot I can do about them.
: Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill sets out procedures relating to the recognition of customary interests either by agreement or order of the court, and it deals with some administrative details. The part I particularly want to focus attention on is Subpart 1, which provides the procedure for the recognition of customary interests. It can be done by either recognition by agreement, or recognition by the court.
: In my opinion the most important part of Part 4 is, as the Attorney-General has already adverted to, the way in which people can have rights recognised under this legislation—whether it can be done through an Act of Parliament or just by agreement through the Minister, or whether it needs to be done through the court. I want to come back to that point, but, before I do, I want to say that I was reflecting overnight on the tone of this debate, which I am pleased to say is quite measured. I think it reflects well upon us as a Parliament that it is measured.
Paul Quinn: Thank you, David.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Quinn says thank you.
Chris Hipkins: He hasn’t participated in the debate.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Quinn has not yet taken a call on a number of the parts, so maybe that is one of the reasons why his contribution has been measured. I think it is important to put on record the sorts of comments that were being made at the Committee stage of the debate in 2004, and I will quote some of them.
Grant Robertson: Outrageous!
Hon DAVID PARKER: It is absolutely disgraceful. That bill did not go as far as this one does. The Hon Nick Smith said: “This bill is racist. This bill is flawed.” That was his contribution.
Grant Robertson: He said that? Extraordinary!
Hon DAVID PARKER: I am reading extracts from
Hansard in November 2004. We had contributions from Nick Smith later. He was responding to Dover Samuels, who was responding to fears that had been rarked up in New Zealand that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill was going to prevent people from having a barbecue on the beach.
Those comments had been made by a number of people in the National Party. Don Brash was one of them; Bill English, from memory, was one of them, too. So Dover Samuels was saying that that was not the effect of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and actually history shows that Dover Samuels was right. There is now agreement that that was never going to be the case. What did Nick Smith say? He said: “Dover Samuels said that it would not make any difference to families wanting to go down to the beach and have a barbecue. Well, yes, it does and I will tell members why. In relation to the 10 percent that his Māori caucus claims will now be foreshore and seabed reserves, it will be for the management committee to decide who will be able to have a barbecue and where.” That is absolutely irresponsible. This was never about the beach; it was about the part of the foreshore that is wet. Access for recreational purposes was never ever at risk, and was expressly provided for in the Act. That was one of the most despicable acts of undermining race relations that we, I hope, will ever see in this Parliament.
Hon Tau Henare: That’s right; say sorry.
Hon DAVID PARKER: —to members on this side of the Chamber in respect of legislation that was not perfect but was not nearly as bad as was presented, and that was done against the climate of those sorts of comments, I say to Mr Henare that he should look at himself and record his own statements on talkback radio. He was not in Parliament at the time but he was rarking things up on radio.
Paul Quinn: Gobbledegook.
Hon DAVID PARKER: “Gobbledegook”, says the “lawyer” from the other side. We already covered, yesterday, the issue that it is certainly not cheaper through
Parliament; it costs over $2 million for every statute in this Parliament. So the cost of a statute giving effect to a foreshore and seabed agreement is probably worth more than the underlying interests—a bit of a nonsense in the first place—and it certainly costs more than the alternative process through the courts. There are a range of interests—
Paul Quinn: They’re not allowed legal aid, for a start.
Hon DAVID PARKER: What was that? Not if we take legal aid into account?
Paul Quinn: I said they’re not allowed legal aid under this bill.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I was saying that even if we were to subsidise the cost of court processes, it would be a lower cost to the taxpayer to do that than to do it through Parliament. It is patently clear that that is the case. That is what I was saying.
: Speaking on Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, which is named in a fairly anodyne way, “Administrative and miscellaneous matters”, I think the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, was correct in drawing to the House’s attention the actual import of this part of the legislation.
My colleague David Parker has teased out some of the legal implications of the process of recognising customary interests, which is addressed in this part. I will pick up on this issue, because we have a situation where it is possible for the recognition of customary rights to be made by an agreement, by the recognition of an order of the court, or through legislation, through an Act. I think this process is really problematic.
The bit I think is problematic is the bit to do with recognition by agreement in clause 93 and following clauses.
: Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare.
As I turn to Part 4 I will try to focus, as I have done in all previous speaking opportunities during the debate, on the issues highlighted by the bill and on the public statements of relevant players in the development of the legislation, because Māori people deserve to know exactly how they will be affected by the decisions of the parties
and persons who are promoting the bill. Because I am a member of Parliament elected to represent the specific interests of Māori, it is that particular area that I intend to focus my comments on.
I will begin my contribution to the debate by asking whether the Māori Party knows that the legally prescribed detail found in clauses 94 to 97 of this bill, and other legislation like it in the field of Treaty settlements, and in the oversight, the field of governance, and management of natural resources is a dangerous turn for Māori by forcing us into the legal environment whereby the value of traditional Māori principles or
kaupapa Māori will be determined and legal precedents and benchmarks will be established that will impact on those principles for ever more. Does the Māori Party realise that allowing the courtrooms to become the battleground for determining the rightness, or otherwise, of kaupapa Māori, as noted in various clauses found in Part 4 of this bill,
is detrimental to the principles themselves and to the world view they represent? Will that make the Māori Party reconsider the position it announced the other day that “This bill is in the House on our initiative. Make no bones … this is a Maori Party bill … We are pleased to stand here in support of this bill.”?
Does the Māori Party realise that by giving its support to clauses 97 to 103 of Part 4 of this bill it is endorsing the Government’s attempts to codify the principles I have already mentioned in a way that our
tūpuna would not agree with and our people will not accept, and that by supporting this bill the Māori Party is setting the stage for decades of litigation as Māori seek to reclaim ground that has been lost through the passage of the bill? If the Māori Party does realise the mistake it has made, will that help it to think about dumping the decision it announced the other day that this bill is a Māori Party bill?
Does the Māori Party know that its support for clause 105 of the bill, whereby Māori are required to prove customary title, is inconsistent with the position that is widely held
by Māori throughout the country that Māori should not have to go to court to prove what the whole world already knows anyway: that Māori were here first? Why do we have to prove it? Will the Māori Party finally accept that the position that “this is a Maori Party bill … We are pleased to stand here in support of this bill.” is simply untenable to Māori and unacceptable to all those who support the principles of justice?
: Kia ora. E mihi kau ana ki te Minita kei te tae tata atu tātou ki te otinga o te ture nei. Nā te mea i roto i āku e taumahatia atu te mahi pēnei tonu, engari e pai ana kei te tae tata atu ki a tātou.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I wouldn’t call the Minister over-endowed.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: —the great Minister—and I hope that he makes sure of that. This is the serious part, where Māoridom would really struggle with any attempt to realign aspects of tikanga and tuku iho. It is a serious part; it is a very, very serious part. This issue was relevant to the usage of the Māori Appellate Court and the Māori Land Court, because it has been their everyday business. They are practised in it. It is like the Environment Court and the Family Court; they are practised in it. They
understand the fundamentals, and they understand the nuances that drive their activity. So I say kia ora to the Minister.
Hon Tau Henare: What’s that, e Rōpū Reipa?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Te Rōpū Nāhinara—Pirimia Key—said: “National will look to abolish the Māori seats.”, and also said: “If the Government does not legislate to protect ownership of the foreshore for all New Zealanders, then we will put forward our own bill.” There is something very mysterious there. I mihi to the member for Te Tai Tonga in that other party, because, if he abolished the Māori seats—and the difference in the vote here is about three or four seats—this bill would not go through. At this late time, I challenge and plead with Māori Party members to change their vote, because National said in July 2003 that it would get rid of the Māori seats. National is waiting for Māori Party members to sanction this bill and get it through, and then it will get rid of their seats. Look, it is not too late—seriously, it is not too late. Those members should turn away, because that is what he said—
Hon Tau Henare: What does the agreement say?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: What does the agreement say? In 2004 Dr Brash, who was the best friend of Mr Tau Henare—who used to stand by him on those “Iwi/Kiwi” placards and all that stuff; he used to rap it up—
Hon Darren Hughes: Kotahitanga!
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is it—Brash and “Trash”. They used to stand on the beach, yell out, and insult Māori. Dr Brash said: “We believe that there should be one law for all, that we are all New Zealanders with the same rights and obligations under the law. New Zealanders do not want to have separate titles and development rights for our beaches according to race.” Then Gerry Brownlee chastised us. It was Gerry Brownlee, who is doing a reasonable job in Christchurch, who said: “We do not favour a process that would give Māori a greater say than non-Māori in the management of these significant resources.” National has made its position on this clear, right from the start. “We believe our beaches and our lakes should belong to me.”—that is what Gerry said.
: How interesting that we have just heard Mr Parekura Horomia talking about the virtues of one law for all, and Tau Henare asking what is wrong with that. One would believe, with that interjection, that Tau Henare actually believes we should have one law for all, which highlights that Tau Henare does not understand the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. He does not understand the detailed provisions in this bill. One of the clauses we are debating is clause 93 in Part 4, and that clause restricts iwi and hapū—
Hon Tau Henare: Where’s Hilary?
One has to look no further than the article published in the
last Wednesday where Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples made a point of all the benefits they had achieved, and they concluded: “Make no mistake—the Maori Party persuaded the National Party to support this bill. We will work with any party that supports the kaupapa of our people. … For a small party, we have achieved amazing results in a short time.”
If we look at Tariana’s comments in
Hansard, we see thatshe says: “There is also a very interesting provision, tucked away in clause 105, the burden of proof clause, which states explicitly that ‘it is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that
customary interest has not been extinguished. … In other words it will be up to the Crown to prove that any interest had been extinguished—rather than placing the onus of proof on the whānau, hāpu and iwi.” So this bill creates a customary interest: the ability of iwi or hāpu to claim a customary title over land to the 12-mile limit, the territorial seas, which is a limit that was only just extended less than 40 years ago.
: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I want to speak particularly on clauses 97 and 105. Clause 97, as we know, allows the High Court to refer a question of tikanga to the Māori Appellate Court for its opinion or to obtain the advice of a pūkenga. The concept of pūkenga comes, of course, from the Māori Land Court and the Māori Appellate Court, where the court seeks the assistance of those experts who have experience and knowledge of tikanga Māori.
It really saddened me to hear the nature of the kōrero from the ACT Party around tikanga. One of the major achievements the Māori Party has secured in this bill has been to ensure that tikanga permeates the legislation. In that way we see the value accorded
to Māori customary values and practices being reflected right throughout. I am mindful of the challenge left by former MP and esteemed Māori leader Tā Apirana Ngata and his much quoted words: “E tipu e rea”. In those words, Tā Apirana encouraged Māori to grasp the tools of the Pākehā world while at the same time cherish ngā taonga a o tūpuna Māori—the treasures of our ancestors. It was, if one likes, the notion of promoting excellence in both worlds.
I have to wonder whether the ACT Party has grasped the notion of living in a Treaty-based nation in which partnership means to cherish the foundations of the two Treaty partners, working in two worlds, Aotearoa New Zealand. A commitment to nationhood, driven from the Treaty, would mean that this House would never again be subjected to the cultural assault of tikanga being described in the terms of
Ironically, the reference to
was made during a kōrero on the preamble—a preamble that, monumentally, introduces for the first time into any public environment or into any resource management - related legislation the kaupapa of manaakitanga and the tikanga that are derived from it. In Ngāi Tahu, for example, the concept of manaakitanga is the tikanga that tangata whenua practise towards manuhiri, and it enabled whalers from foreign shores to remain on the takutai and set up whaling stations.
Although the misguided few look to role models such as
Alice in Wonderland, I know there are those amongst us who look to our own Pacific role models—figures such as Māui, who looked beyond the horizon, using the wisdom of his ancestors and the boldness of his youth to seek change in the world.
: Earlier we heard Paul Quinn say that David Parker was talking gobbledegook. How appropriate; there is no member in the Chamber who is more qualified to recognise gobbledegook when he hears it. Paul Quinn is the member of the Māori Affairs Committee who takes 3½ minutes to ask a question that requires a yes or no answer, and in the course of that 3½ minutes he will answer the question three times himself, and then he will still contradict himself.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek the leave of the Committee for all ACT amendments on this part to be taken as one question.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? Objection is taken.
Hon John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to express my disgust that that motion was moved as another Labour member of Parliament asked me to leave the Chamber in order to have a private discussion.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order.
KELVIN DAVIS: As I was saying about Paul Quinn, there is no better member of Parliament qualified to recognise gobbledegook when he hears it, and the glazed and dazed and tired expressions on the faces of members in the Chamber are not because they were up until midnight last night voting, they are because we are still trying to figure out the last question that Paul Quinn asked in the Māori Affairs Committee. So I
thank Mr Quinn for his contribution to the debate on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. It has been going on for 3 days and that was the most intelligent comment he has made so far.
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National)
: The next part of the application process set out in Part 4 of the
is that the applicant has to give notice of who may appear on an application for recognition order, then there are the evidence and burden of proof parts of the process. Supplementary Order Paper 207 suggests that clause 105, “Burden of proof”, be substituted with “In the case of the application for recognition of protected customary rights in a specified area of the
common marine and coastal area, the applicant group must prove that the protected customary right has been exercised in the specific area; and continues to be exercised by that group in the same area in accordance with tikanga.”
Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s not learned.
KELVIN DAVIS: OK; that was excessive use of hyperbole there, I agree. I will wait for Paul Quinn to jump to his feet and to actually take a call and contribute to this whole debate, because so far he and the Hon Tau Henare have basically been barrelling out and chastising everyone else who stands up to contribute. People on this side of the Chamber have made rich and comprehensive contributions on the bill, and those two members have just sat over there and all they have done is throw bricks at everyone else who stands up.
New Zealand National 57; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Before I move to further votes—and we have a number of amendments to go through and to vote on—I point out that voting is a serious matter and I ask that we concentrate on what is before us at the time. The next amendments are a typescript amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit the heading to clause 93 and an amendment to subclause (1). These are out order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The next amendment in Hilary Calvert’s name is to clause 93(2) to omit “6” and substitute “5”. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The next amendment in Hilary Calvert’s name is to clause 93(2), to omit “years” and substitute “weeks”. This amendment is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.
to omit from subclause (3) “Crown” in the first place where it appears and substitute “applicant group”.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Further amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 93(3) to omit “Crown” in each place where it appears and substitute “responsible Minister” and to omit “Crown” in the second place where it appears and substitute “applicant group” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. A further amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 93(4) to omit “Crown” and substitute “Minister of Science and Innovation” is also out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 93(4)(b), to omit “met” and substitute “met, and a commitment is made by the applicant group to not prevent free access for individuals and groups of the public”, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
(5)The responsible Minister, upon receiving application from an applicant group to seek an agreement recognising a protected customary right or customary marine title, must direct the chief executive to, without delay, notify of this application in the
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have an amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to omit and substitute clause 94. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. Further amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clauses 94 and 95 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
to omit from subclause (5) “this section limits section 10 of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992” and substitute “this Act shall override this section”.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 97(2) to omit “is binding” and substitute “is not binding” is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A further Hilary Calvert amendment to clause 98(2) to omit “6” and substitute “7” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. A further Hilary Calvert amendment to omit clause 100 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have a Hilary Calvert amendment to clause 102(1), to add “not later than 20 working days after filing the application”. This is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. A further Hilary Calvert amendment, to clause 102(2)(a), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A Hilary Calvert amendment to clause 102(2)(e), to omit “person” and substitute “person or group”, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. A further amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 102(2)(f), to omit “date” and substitute “proposed date”, is out of order.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A further amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 102(3) to omit “20” and substitute “18” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
to omit from subclause (3) “days” and substitute “hours”.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A further Hilary Calvert amendment to clause 102(3) to omit “days” and substitute “minutes” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. A further Hilary Calvert amendment to the heading of clause 103, to omit “Who” and substitute “Anyone”, is out of order as not being a serious amendment.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 103 be agreed to:
to omit “interested”; and
to omit “by the due date” and substitute “within 7 days of their proposed appearance”.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A further Hilary Calvert amendment to clause 103 to omit “by the due date” and substitute “within 14 days of their proposed appearance” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. A further Hilary Calvert amendment to omit clause 105 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 106 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1);
to add to subclause (3) the following paragraph:
(e)has any other reasonable reason to do so.; and
to omit from subclause (4) “application” and substitute “application for the same or any other reason”.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 107 be agreed to:
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The further Hilary Calvert amendments to omit clauses 108, 109, 110, and 111(1) to (3) are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. A further Hilary Calvert amendment to clause 111(4), to omit “only by—” and substitute “by any person or group.”, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 111 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (4)(a);
to omit from subclause (4)(b) “, if the holder—”;
to omit subclause (4)(b)(i);
to omit subclause (4)(b)(ii);
to omit subclause (5)(a);
to omit from subclause (5)(b) “group” and substitute “group and relevant local authority”; and
to omit subclause (5)(c).
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have an amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 113. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. A further amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 114 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 115 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (1) “safe”;
to omit from subclause (2) “may be kept” and substitute “must be kept”;
to omit from subclause (2)(a) “electromagnetic,”;
to omit from subclause (2)(a) “or process”;
to omit from subclause (2)(b) “a” and substitute “a printed”;
to omit from subclause (2)(c) “other” and substitute “any other”;
to omit from subclause (2)(c) “reproducing”; and
to omit from subclause (2)(d) “systems, or means” and substitute “or systems”.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 116 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (1) “orders” and substitute “original orders”;
to omit from subclause (1) “documents” and substitute “original documents”;
to omit from subclause (1) “inspection” and substitute “inspection, borrowing”;
to omit from subclause (1) “copies may” and substitute “copies must”;
to omit from subclause (1) “on payment of the prescribed fee (if any)” and substitute “without fee or charge of any kind”;
to omit from subclause (2) “inspect” and substitute “inspect, borrow”;
to omit from subclause (2) “orders” and substitute “original orders”;
to omit from subclause (2) “documents” and substitute “original documents”;
to omit from subclause (2)(a) “paper” and substitute “paper or electronic”;
to omit from subclause (2)(a) “copy” and substitute “or photographic copy”;
to omit from subclause (2)(b) “a paper” and substitute “a paper or optical”; and
to omit from subclause (2)(b) “document” and substitute “or digital document”.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 117 be agreed to:
to omit the heading; and
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 118 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (1)(a) “the” and substitute “recording and keeping the”;
to omit from subclause (1)(b) “wardens” and substitute “fisheries officers and wardens”;
to omit from subclause (1)(b) “termination” and substitute “termination, if any,”;
to omit from subclause (1)(c) “wardens” and substitute “fisheries officers and wardens”;
to omit from subclause (1)(d) “wardens” and substitute “fisheries officers and wardens”;
to omit from subclause (1)(e) “wardens” and substitute “fisheries officers and wardens”;
to omit from subclause (1)(e) “identified” and substitute “identified by the public and police”;
to omit from subclause (1)(f) “management” and substitute “management and remuneration”;
to omit from subclause (1)(f) “wardens” and substitute “fisheries officers and wardens”;
to omit from subclause (1)(g) “prescribing the fees payable” and substitute “prohibiting fees”;
to omit subclause (1)(h);
to omit subclause (1)(i);
to omit from subclause (2) “Justice” and substitute “Broadcasting”; and
to omit from subclause (2) “must consult” and substitute “may consult”.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 119 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (1) “of Conservation” and substitute “for Biosecurity”;
to omit from subclause (1) “all or any” and substitute “all”;
to omit from subclause (1)(a) “exercise rights” and substitute “exercise, without charge, rights”;
to omit from subclause (1)(a) “that area” and substitute “that area, including wāhi tapu”;
to omit from subclause (1)(b) “that area” and substitute “that area, including wāhi tapu”;
to omit from subclause (1)(c) “construction or use” and substitute “construction”;
to omit from subclause (1)(c) “prohibiting or regulating” and substitute “regulating”;
to omit from subclause (1)(c) “that area” and substitute “that area, including wāhi tapu”;
to omit from subclause (1)(c) “removal or destruction” and substitute “removal”;
to omit from subclause (1)(d) “placing or deposit” and substitute “placing”;
to omit from subclause (1)(d) “prohibiting or regulating” and substitute “prohibiting”;
to omit from subclause (1)(d) “that area” and substitute “that area, including wāhi tapu”;
to omit from subclause (1)(d) “removal or destruction” and substitute “destruction”;
to omit from subclause (1)(e) “not exceeding” and substitute “exceeding”; and
to omit from subclause (1)(e) “$5,000” and substitute “$19.84”.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A further amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 119(1)(e) is to omit “$5,000” and substitute “$3,000”. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
to omit subclause (1)(f);
to omit from subclause (2) “of Conservation” and substitute “for Ethnic Affairs”;
to omit subclause (2)(a); and
to omit subclause (2)(b).
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 120 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (1) “of Conservation” and substitute “for Disarmament and Arms Control”;
to omit from subclause (1) “Gazette” and substitute “Gazette and publicly notified by Ministerial press release”;
to omit from subclause (1) “or any of the following” and substitute “of the following”;
to omit from subclause (1)(a) “prohibiting or regulating” and substitute “regulating”;
to omit from subclause (1)(a) “or parking of vehicles” and substitute “of vehicles”;
to omit from subclause (1)(b) “or mooring of vessels” and substitute “of vessels”;
to omit from subclause (1)(c) “prohibiting” and substitute “regulating”; and
(j)for the purposes of this section, aircraft includes hovercraft.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have Hilary Calvert’s amendments to insert new clause 120(1)(c)(i), to substitute other categories in the definition of “aircraft”. These are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 120(1)(d) be agreed to:
to omit “not exceeding” and substitute “exceeding”; and
to omit “$500” and substitute “$5”.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The next Hilary Calvert amendment to clause 120(1)(d), to omit “$500” and substitute “$250”, and the amendment to clause120(2) to omit “of Conservation” and substitute “for Food Safety” are ruled out of order.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 120(2) be agreed to:
to omit “unless satisfied that—”
to omit paragraph (a); and
to omit paragraph (b).
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 121 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (1) “On and after” and substitute “Following”;
to omit from subclause (1) “area” and substitute “area, access by permission right”; and
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 122 be agreed to:
to omit the heading.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 123 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (1) “person” and substitute “person or group”;
to omit from subclause (1) “in writing” and substitute “verbally and in writing”;
to omit subclause (1)(a);
to omit from subclause (1)(b) “person” and substitute “person or group”;
to omit subclause (1)(c); and
to omit subclause (1)(d).
A party vote
was called for on the question,
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have three typescript amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 123(1)(e) to omit “person” and substitute “person or group”. These are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
to omit from subclause (1)(e) “electronic mail,”;
to omit from subclause (2) “post or registered post” and substitute “registered post”; and
to omit from subclause (2) “given or received” and substitute “received”.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 123 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (2) “7” and substitute “5”.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 123(2) to omit “7” and substitute “2” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.
to omit from subclause (2) “days” and substitute “hours”.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 123(2) to omit “days” and substitute “minutes” and to omit “after the date” and substitute “on the date” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. [Interruption] Votes are taken in silence.
to omit from subclause (2) “to whom” and substitute “or group to whom”.
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 124 be agreed to:
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We come now to an amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to omit clauses 92 to 124. These are out of order as being a direct negative.
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now come to the schedules. Before I put the vote on schedule 1, several people have lodged amendments to omit it. The proper course is to simply vote against this schedule. Are we aware of that? I will say that again. Several people have lodged amendments to omit schedule 1. The proper course is to simply vote against this schedule.
Schedule 1 not agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have an amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to omit schedule 1 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206. This is out of order as being a direct negative. We have a further amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to omit this schedule. It is now out of order.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 207 and 215 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to schedule 2 be agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have a typescript amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to omit this schedule. This is out of order.
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.
The question was put that new schedule 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.
That new schedule 2A be agreed to.
New schedule 2A agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have an amendment in the name of Metiria Turei set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 to omit new schedule 2A as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207. This is out of order.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the proposed amendments to schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in his name be agreed to.
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.
Amendments to the amendments agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to schedule 3 and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in his name to schedule 3 be agreed to.
That the amendments as amended and the amendments be agreed to.
Amendments as amended and amendments agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now come to the Hon David Parker’s typescript amendment to omit schedule 3. This is now out of order.
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.
: The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill has a dual-language title, and may be cited by either the English or Māori title.
: Kāti, kia ora tātou kei roto i te Whare. Kai te Heamana, kai te Minita, ngā mema katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
Before I touch on the title of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, I will take this brief opportunity to acknowledge the quality of the information that the Minister has provided about this bill in the Committee stage, although it is very difficult for members on this side of the Chamber to accept a lot of his explanations in terms of various parts of the bill. However, that is the Government’s position, and it is to be respected.
What has not been acknowledged in the Chamber throughout this debate is the mistake the Māori Party has made in taking ownership over this particular bill. It is very important that in the closing stages of the Committee stage I stand in this Chamber and make comment about that. It is our premise that there is no way we can camouflage the issues in this bill by adding a Māori flavour to the title. The addition of “takutai moana” to the Foreshore and Seabed Act will just not sell it amongst Māori communities, regardless of how the Māori Party members who have spoken to the bill have tried to sell it to this House, and to the rest of Māoridom.
The Labour Opposition believes that the more appropriate title for this bill would be the “Marine and Coastal Area (Foreshore and Seabed) Re-enactment Bill”. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I myself, the man who is standing in this Chamber and speaking on behalf of the central North Island, from the rohe of Mātaatua, Te Arawa, and Tākitimu, would call it the “Te Ao Hurihuri Bill”—in other words, the “Backward Flip Bill”, the “Return to the Past Bill”, because that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. It stagnates Māori customary rights as of 1840, and by and large allows the authority of the Crown, or of New Zealand, to flourish and grow. That is why, when I was asked the question earlier during the couple of days we have been debating this bill: “What’s the name of that bill, again?”, I said: “Well, giving it a Māori flavour just doesn’t do it for me, because to me, kei te hoki whakamuri tātou [we are going backwards]—in other words, the “Te Ao Hurihuri Bill”; the one that takes us back into the Stone Age.
A lot of examples have been given by various speakers in this Chamber about where we think the Māori Party has gone wrong but is refusing to acknowledge it. We are not here to speak about Part 4, but certainly some members of the Māori Party, who do not admit to having or acknowledge they have law degrees, have not read this bill properly, and therefore do not understand the implications. As a result, they do not wish to stand in this Chamber and affirm that they have got it right, and maybe Hone Harawira is correct in challenging them on those particular points.
For example, let us take the burden of proof. The burden of proof still rests on Māoridom, no matter how it is worded in this bill. Yes, those rights that have not been extinguished by the Crown will remain, but the Crown can prove that over 75 percent of the coastline of Aotearoa is not subject to protected customary rights because those rights have been extinguished. I will give the Committee an example. In Tauranga, in the Bay of Plenty, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga had our customary rights extinguished in the period between 1840 and 1865 by way of raupatu, and the Crown can prove that. Actually, we are having a difficult job proving that it did not do that. The rest of the country accepts it, and previous Governments have accepted it, but as we are negotiating our way through these issues we are having difficulty in proving that the Crown acted illegally in our interests.
So when a Māori Party member stands in the House and says the burden of proof is on the Crown, I have to tell that member to get his or her head out of the sand and come back to earth. The Crown has no difficulty whatsoever in proving that rights in certain areas of the country have been extinguished. It is the same with Te Arawa and the return of the Te Arawa lakes. Te Arawa had to prove that they not only had had ownership pre-1992 but also had had ownership in the period between 1840 and whenever it was. It was a very difficult and costly exercise for them to go through. I remind Māori Party members—and Hone Harawira, whom they refuse to name, has attempted to tell them—that they have got it wrong. When they say to make no bones about the fact that this bill is their bill, well, I hope they can stand up without conscience in the Māori community and say: “Yes, we still take ownership of it.”, even though those Māori communities will have to prove they have a customary interest in their particular areas.
Maybe the member Rahui Katene will tell the people from where she comes, at the top of the South Island, that they do not have to prove they had a customary right, and that they do not have to prove that those customary rights were extinguished—because they were. They were. The Crown is currently in negotiations with her people now to compensate them for the loss of those rights. What is it about that that those people do not understand? Members can put all the nice language and legal jargon they like into these bills, but Māori still have to front up in court to prove their case. What do those members not understand about that? The Crown has no difficulty in turning up to prove that those rights have been extinguished; sometimes these debates can get up to a level where Māori can practically lose interest in them.
I think my colleague Kelvin Davis gave some examples of how this issue will affect Māori, as the rubber hits the road in their communities. Why would any Māori group make an application for the recognition of customary rights to collect hāngi stones? Why would they? I had an issue with that in 2004, because it was raised then. Why would any Māori make an application to the High Court for the recognition of customary rights so they can launch a waka? I had an issue with that in 2004; I have an issue with that now. Māori Party members had an issue with it back then, but they have refused to admit to that now. Those members should show some consistency. They should be true to their beliefs, and stand up and speak up. They should not do backward flips and try to convince our people that this bill is a good thing, because it is not.
There are actually no changes in the bill. There are changes in the words, but the substance of the bill, in terms of the ability of Māori to prove customary rights—I will use those words again: prove customary rights—means that that is still very, very difficult. The Court of Appeal said that, so what is it about that that those members do not understand? The entire South Island was subject to confiscation, and all those rights were lost. Ngāi Tahu have spent decades on trying to have those rights reinstated. What is it about the member from Te Tai Tonga, and her legal background, that she cannot accept or understand that? I have people in the Mātaatua and Te Arawa rohe who have
not had the privilege or the type of education that that member has had—in fact, they have struggled with literacy—but they can work that one out. Every time they go to the beach to get pipis, they know that between them they can get one bucket. They know that when they go and dive for kina, they can get one bag. They understand that, even though the codification of those rights totally loses them. That is why I say to the member that when Te Ao Māori is codified, Te Ao Māori is removed from the Māori people. Members need to understand that. When tikanga is codified, it does not matter who makes the decision or who gives the advice; that is the legal precedent, and that is the end of it. What do they not understand about that? I am concerned that that member stands in this Chamber and tries to pull the wool over our eyes, and the eyes of the rest of Māoridom, in saying this bill is good for them, when Te Ao Māori, as they know, it is slowly disappearing. What is it about that that she will not accept? I had difficulty accepting her arguments in the Chamber this afternoon.
I do not often agree with Hone Harawira. Actually, I think he is a bit flighty, and I have told him that many times. But he touched all the right buttons today, and I have difficulty disproving him.
As the curtain closes on this particular debate I wish I had a lot more time to speak, because there are other members I would like to address, such as my whanaunga over there from Ngāti Awa. What will my cousin say to them when he goes back and tells them he voted for this bill? Will he say there is nothing in it for Māori, but that they will get to go to court? Will he say that it will cost $200,000, plus their lawyers’ fees, but they will come away with nothing, because they will not be able to meet the test of the burden of proof? As to all those rights that they may say the Crown confiscated—well, the Crown has plenty of evidence to prove that those rights were extinguished.
That is my contribution to this debate. I am very disappointed. I have sat quietly and listened to members make their contributions, but I am very disappointed at the level of ignorance that I have heard in the Chamber today. This is a very simple issue. This is about us, about Māori people. This is about our customary rights, but the codification of those rights changes them. There is nothing wrong with going to court and arguing our case, but when tikanga, manaakitanga, and all those areas that we hold valuable are codified, then they are no longer ours. Kia ora.
: Kia ora tātou. It is a great pleasure to be able to record for
that National has fought the good battle and won, along with our coalition partner, the Māori Party. It has given us support and shown us leadership on this particular issue, which clearly is a very important issue to this nation. The Māori Party has been the shining light in this discussion, in this conversation, in this debate. I acknowledge both the leadership and the members of the Māori Party for showing the way and finding the solution that will last until Parekura and I are well gone from this earth to the gods in heaven.
I also at this stage comment on and address the title of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I was going to start my contribution by reflecting on the civility that has descended on this Chamber in this debate today. But unfortunately my taina, my whanaunga from the last speech, Mita Ririnui, has started to take it to the line. He used words like “ignorance” and so on. It was uncalled for. We do not need those words in the concluding stages of this debate. I will set that aside as a little blip from an inexperienced young lad, my younger relation, who is not able to show leadership, as I say.
I will talk to the title of this bill and the commencement date. In my view, the basic difference between the position of the Government and that of the major opposition—namely, the Labour Party—is around issues of codification. I know my good friend and colleague David Parker, in his contribution to the previous part of this debate, made
reference to the cost of negotiating settlements as opposed to going to court, but I assure my friend that I have been through both systems. I have been through a court process and I have been through a negotiated process. Let me tell members that the most tortuous process is the court process, without a doubt. Without a doubt, the most tortuous process is the court process.
In addressing the commencement of the codifications we have put into the this bill, I will read a passage from the Chief Justice in her contribution to the finding in the Ngāti Apa case. It goes to the heart of the reasons why we need codification. This is what Sian Elias wrote: “I agree with Keith and Anderson JJ and Tipping J that
was wrong in law and should not be followed.
followed the discredited authority of
Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington … which was rejected by the Privy Council in
Nireaha Tamaki v Baker”. Those cases date right back.
The point I am making is that if we follow Labour’s solution and leave it to the courts, I have no doubt at all that we will end up down the track, in another 20 or 30 years, with a new, ground-breaking decision by a court. In the same way that the Ngāti Apa case turned previous case law on its head, it will do exactly the same. I have no doubt that down the track it will lead to a new decision that will take us in a completely different direction. The proposed Labour solution of letting the court decide provides no certainty and no predictability for the people today.
That is what people want. They want to be able to go to sleep at night knowing that the foreshore and seabed is safe, that they have free access, and that they can actually go and recreate. That is what they want to know. In this bill, by codifying, we have been able to place a fence around the issues that the courts should focus on. That is all we have done.
Everyone talks about it. My friends from ACT—such as John Boscawen, whom I must admire for his tenacity, although I say to him to let us just be friends with regard to his contribution—keep talking about Māori definitions. If they read the bill they would find that almost all the Māori definitions except for one are actually from other legislation, where case law has already been developed in relation to those terms. The Resource Management Act defines, and has case law developed in relation to, most of the Māori terms. The bill refers to the Conservation Act, the Historic Places Act, and so on and so forth.
I think there is only one—at most—new Māori term in the bill. In fact, we have had a long discussion about tikanga. I thought about it yesterday; I should have brought my matua’s principled work from Hirini Mead, who wrote a thick book on tikanga.
Hon Parekura Horomia: That’s right.
PAUL QUINN: You probably have a copy in your office, e hoa.
Hon Parekura Horomia: We don’t need those in Ngāti Porou; it’s a living thing.
PAUL QUINN: No, no. This is for the Pākehā. This is for the Pākehā so they can understand. I am surprised that my taina did not produce it when he was talking about tikanga. My uncle has written the seminal piece of work on it. It is there for the courts to use as a guide.
I will come back to the point. By codifying, we can place a ring-fence around what the court can and cannot decide. That will be important as we go forward, when this bill comes into force after the date on which it receives Royal assent. Once it comes into place, we will have codification, and that will enable us to go forward as a nation in peace and harmony. We can put behind us the scourge of arguments we have had in this Chamber.
Thank you. It has been a great opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I thank the Committee.
: Tēnā tātou. I roto i te tū nei kei te mihi kau ana ki tōku whanaunga e noho atu i roto i te mahana o te Tūru Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare. Tēnā koe. Kāore e mau atu i te maka kōrero mō i a koe engari, mō wētahi i roto i tō rōpū, me rātou mā, e maka atu i roto i āku. Tēnā tātou.
E mihi kau ana ki ngā āhua katoa mō te ture nei, mō rātou mā e kore i konei, mō rātou e whai kaha i te hīkoi tahi atu i te tai i Pōneke, mai i te wāhi o Te Oneroa-a-Tohe, kaha atu rātou i tērā tau. E mihi kau ana. Nā, te pai hoki kei te tae tata atu tātou ki te oti o te ture nei, ahakoa te whakaaro wehewehe i roto i āku mō tēnei take.
[Greetings to us. As I rise I acknowledge my relative sitting in the warm seat beside the Chair of the House. Greetings to
you. I do not have anything critical to say about you, but I do about some in your party, and other members. I certainly have something disparaging to toss at them. Greetings to us.
I commend all aspects
this legislation, I commend those who are not here and those ones who have found the energy to march together to Wellington from the Long Beach of Tōhe. They were resolute last year. I commend them. It is wonderful that we have nearly completed the debates on this legislation, even though my views on it differ
I was surprised that the member across the other side of the Chamber Paul Quinn dared to suggest that my parliamentary colleague was his taina. I have always known that whakapapa, great as it is, from the maunga Mauao, and I thought he was the taina. “Taina” is “junior”. In the sense of the titling of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, it certainly smacks of “juniorism”, in terms of the suggestions that this bill will be the be-all and end-all. It could be the “Hullabaloo Bill”, or the “How to Pull the Wool Over the Māoris’ Eyes Bill”.
We need to go back, in retrospect, and remember that the issue arose of making sure things went to the court. My learned colleague David Parker is dead right. There is a cost to all of this. It is like our youngsters who get into the trap of recidivism. This is just like it. If they sin once under the age of 20, they sin six times, and they get taken to pieces by the legal beagles and those who snuffle in that trough. I hope that will not happen here. In the essence of codification, let us be sure who pays for it and how it is done in relation to all the relevant issues in the parts we have discussed.
There are wide-ranging notions in this legislation. Time will tell how we get through it, but let us all be honest and frank enough to say that that will be work over a period of time. For the sake of the member opposite, I tell him that I have no intention of leaving this planet any earlier than him. It is outrageous that he should get so dull as to start talking about that. That is how lopsided the member and some of his colleagues have got. They try to define what time we should leave this planet. It is bureaucracy gone mad! That is what this bill smacks of. The Māori Party has tried to couch it and it has just become over-endowed bureaucrats.
The Prime Minister said in 2003 that he was going to get rid of the Māori seats, so I was trying to encourage the Māori Party members to change their vote. As soon as this bill is through, next week he will get rid of the Māori seats. The difference in this vote is the four Māori seats. This bill is supposed to support the Māori seats.
The member also mentioned Wī Pārata. Pārata is a great name. I have some whanaunga who are named Pārata, but Wī Pārata was from another boundary. He said: “For you may take the land but all you have is the shadow. The land is Māori, and the soul of Māori is the land.” That is what Wī Pārata said in one of the early challenges. If the member quotes one statement, he should remember the better statements. That statement was one of his better political statements, and that is what this bill should be about.
Where I come from it is paradise.
Hon Tau Henare: Where’s that?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It is paradise—Mangatuna, Houri. It is a great place; beaches abound. Seals still come up on the bank and bathe and there is kai moana and all of that stuff.
The issue is that no matter what the law provides for, we have always allowed people access, whether they are Pākehā, whether they come from the ACT Party, whether they are Samoan, or whether they are the local whānau. I was down at the Mōhaka River the other day and I asked this guy how long he had been there for. He said he was retired and had been there for 2 months. He said the Māoris had been letting him go there for 40 years. It is not suggested in this bill that Māori are as advanced as that in intellect, in niceties, in good behaviour, and in hospitality to people who want to visit.
I make the point that in some iwi the contiguousness of the land to the takutai moana gives them a real strong inherited right, which most of them have managed well. They do not need anyone to come along and tell them how to behave and why they should do that. That needs to be highlighted and remembered as we go along in this development.
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: You are effectively supporting the bill by that statement.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No, Mr Mapp, it is different up north—people flog the whenua and all of that. In some areas where there is a congruity of the land to the takutai moana it is as a result of Māori hospitality, not the hospitality of the court or overseas people. It is the hospitality of those generations who have inherited that right through whakapapa and living there, and that is really important.
There is a bit in the bill about hāngi stones and launching the waka. I do not know who put that bit in there. But anyway, I was listening to my colleague David Parker the other night. We have to be explicit about what will help in this matter. The Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Corrections, the Minister of Women’s Affairs, and Ministers for everything else have a say on this issue. There needs to be some serious balancing. People need to go through the sense of the legislation. In some areas now at Christmas time, when we celebrate the “Great Being” and whatever else, Māori like to have a hāngi, but the Resource Management Act says they cannot light a fire. What is the use of having hāngi stones if one cannot light a fire? The point is this: there are contradictions in the law and they cut over tikanga and tuku iho. Darren Hughes likes having hāngi at Christmas. He is well practised in it. But the tikanga as versed in the Resource Management Act says we cannot use those hāngi stones and that it is no good.
I remind the Minister today—
Rahui Katene: The Labour Government could have done something about it during its 9 long years.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: We did great things. We kept the unemployment rate at 5 percent. It was not running at 27 percent. We made sure petrol prices were where they should be. We made sure people could pay their bills. We made sure people had a job. We made sure Māori Television started. We made sure the distribution of health services to preschoolers was really great. It was a great 9 years.
Hon Darren Hughes: That member voted for it .
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: And that member voted for it. She knew that we were good. At the end of the day it was a great thing.
Rahui Katene: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Relevance—[Interruption]
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have called a point of order. The exchanges in the Chamber will stop. There is a point of order. I do not care who started it; everybody will stop.
Rahui Katene: I fail to see the relevance of this to the part we are debating at the moment.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member invited it herself by her own interjections. If the member is going to interject in that manner she will have to expect some contribution back, and the unfortunate part for the member is that the member speaking has the microphone. It is a huge advantage. I say to the member that if she is going to interject, she should calculate that the other person has a microphone and might wander a bit further than she likes. Having said that, I have been signalling to the member with the call that he needs to come back to the point. It is a point well made.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koe, Rahui. In the early days, when I first came to Wellington to work out what was in the briefcase, I used to go with this great man called John, who was Rahui’s whānau. We used to go outside the Department of Social Welfare and protest. He used to tell me to line up out front at 1 o’clock, and we would make sure we put right the crooked Department of Social Welfare and the Government. He was working for them at that time. He would give us the placards and tell us where to stand. I would go and start yelling out for Mrs Bazley, or somebody else, to come out so I could ask them what the hang they were doing. Then I would look around and wonder where the other 200 supporters were. There was nobody. But that Māori was a great Māori because he defended tikanga. He did not shudder, or shut up, or go away. I was proud to know him, even though sometimes he would go over to America; he would come back with big Indian belts and give me one. He had international nuances that he knew about. I suggest to that member that I could teach her about some of the things he taught me.
Tikanga should not be left to law. Tikanga is something that we have to live and maintain, and we have to ensure it is enshrined in our being. It is not just about kapahaka and tā moko, which are great things. It is not just about those or about waka ama. They are great things for our young generations to participate in, and they keep going, but tikanga is about living those issues that are relevant to being Māori. That is all we want to see in this bill: the issues that are relevant to Māori. We may have to adjust and align but not sell out, and that is really, really important.
I feel for the 200 who are marching down the road thinking they are going to change the world; by the time they get here the Māori Party will have signed the bill off. There is nothing to come here for.
There is nothing like being a Māori MP. We get it from the Pākehās, like that silly woman over there who talked about holding one’s breath under the water and Alice in Wonderland. One wonders where the hang she is; she is writing Peter Pan notions. That is disgraceful and is the extreme of the other people in this country. We get it from our own cousins, our own colleagues, especially if we are Māori and are used to working as a minority amongst a whole lot of Pākehās, Africans, and everybody. We get it from everybody. Worst of all, we get it from our own whānau. When the hīkoi came down, I had whānau on the other side yelling at me.
: I start off my brief stint by congratulating the Hon Parekura Horomia, because that speech was one of the best I have heard him deliver in the Chamber. It might not have been factually correct, but it was a hell of a speech. He was a pretty half-decent Minister of Māori Affairs, as well. I cannot say that about his colleagues, though.
The title of this bill is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, but maybe the title should be the “Apology for the Sort of Stuff that Labour Did in 2004 Bill”. Let us get something straight. I have been sitting in the Chamber for the last 2 or 3 days listening very intently—
Hon David Parker: Ha, ha!
Hon TAU HENARE: —to the likes of David Parker. When I met him I thought: “This guy has a lot going for him.” I thought he would be the Labour leader, after Helen
Clark. But then we got to the Māori Affairs Committee, and on a Friday night at about 5.50—
Paul Quinn: 5.05.
Hon TAU HENARE: At about 5.05 we were delivered a 500-page document and told we should all read it.
Hon David Parker: How was it delivered?
Hon TAU HENARE: Through the Internet. If anyone of these fellas has a BlackBerry, they should have been able to read it. They should have been able to read the executive summary, at least. I have been guilty of that before—I have read only the executive summary. I do not always read the whole thing, because we have work to do. I concentrate just on the executive summary. But could Labour Party members do that? I would expect one member to have read the executive summary, and David Parker is the one member I would expect to have read it. I did not think that Kelvin Davis would go home and read it, I did not think that Mita Ririnui would read it, and I did not think that Parekura Horomia would read it. I know these fellas; they will leave it to the Pākehā fella to read.
Hon TAU HENARE: That is the truth. So that side was let down; it was let down by none other than David Parker.
I have heard all sorts of stories in this debate, but I say this to all those people across the Chamber who have been referring to waka jumping, and this, that, and the other thing through this whole debate. I want remind members—in fact I want to school them up—of what was said by Te Kooti, that great Rongowhakaata leader. He said: “It might be a different waka that we all travel in, but the landing place is the same.” What we got from that was that the Labour members, in their wisdom—in their mind’s eye, that is—put through this House in 2004 a bill that was not particularly good. Fifty thousand people came knocking on the door to tell them it was not a good thing. Within 2 to 3 hours after the Court of Appeal decision had been made, politicians jumped on it and created a mess that they really could not get out of.
I was heartened to hear the Hon Maryan Street apologise, not once but twice. That is all I wanted. As far as I am concerned, all I ever wanted from the Labour Party was an apology. If that is the apology, I thank the member.
Paul Quinn: David was first.
Hon TAU HENARE: David Parker may have been first, but I would rather give it to Maryan.
Hon Darren Hughes: Are you going to rejoin the Labour Party?
Hon TAU HENARE: Rejoin? What does that mean? To rejoin, one must have been a member. I have never been a member of a foolhardy group.
Hon Darren Hughes: Did the member vote Labour?
Hon TAU HENARE: No, never. Let me tell members—and I digress, Mr Chairperson, because I have been challenged—that my first voting foray was in 1978 when I voted—[Interruption] Mr Chair?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think I want to hear the answer.
Hon TAU HENARE: I voted for the Hon Matiu Rata, who was standing as a member for Mana Motuhake, not Labour, in the 1978 or 1979 by-election.
Hon Darren Hughes: No, there was no by-election in 1979.
Hon TAU HENARE: The 1978 by-election?
Hon Darren Hughes: The 1978 general election.
Hon TAU HENARE: No, he had resigned his seat. It was 1979.
Hon Darren Hughes: 1980.
Hon TAU HENARE: 1980. That was my first voting foray. So I voted not for Labour but for Mana Motuhake.
Hon Darren Hughes: Why did he wait till he was 30 to cast his first vote?
Hon TAU HENARE: Ha ha! That was a good one; I will give the member that. But I go back to the bill. I have heard the discussion in the Chamber that this bill is about Māori this and Māori that. When we look at the bill, we see that it is about New Zealand. It is about an opportunity for both Māori and others, Europeans and others, to get it right. This Government has attempted to get it right, and only time will tell whether this bill is the right thing. I believe in my heart that it is.
I will give some examples of people’s access to the beach prior to the 2004 legislation and after the 2004 legislation, and what will most probably happen after this legislation. There will always be miscreants who will get on the beach and say to people: “You’re not coming onto my beach.”, regardless of whatever law we have. I bet my bottom dollar that individuals will get up, not representing any iwi or hapū other than their own self-interest, and tell whoever is listening to get off their beach, regardless of whether they have the right to do that. That will happen, and it does happen.
Hon Parekura Horomia: The rich people.
Hon TAU HENARE: It is not only the rich people; it is—
Hon Parekura Horomia: Yes, it is.
Hon TAU HENARE: You know, Labour members have got to get it out of their heads that rich people are stopping us from doing anything. That fact of the matter is that it is most probably the rich people who are damn well looking after the beaches, as we all should be—especially those people up on the East Coast and up in the north, which is my own territory, who continually say to tourists and to people from those areas: “Get off our beaches.” Well, they ain’t their beaches; they are New Zealand’s beaches.
This whole argument is not even about the beach. I tell John Boscawen, briefly, that the problem is not access to the beach. If people want to come to the beach—and I have a plot of land there—they can come and ask. Nine times out of 10, people will allow others to walk over their property to the beach. Access has never been an issue. It was always a red herring. What we are talking about is codifying and putting into legislation the bits and pieces that go with responsibility in terms of the cultural side of things—the tikanga.
I tell members that, like Jerry Matepārae, I am with New Zealand. I back the majority of New Zealanders, both Māori and Pākehā, to get on well, to have their barbecues on the beach, to have access to the beach, to protect wāhi tapu, and to protect those areas that mean a hell of a lot to us, not as a people but as a nation. That is what I see in this bill. I am past the time when I could get stuck into those members for that horrible thing they did in 2004, and I accept the apology that they have given. It means a hell of a lot, and I am not kidding. An apology for doing what they did in 2004 means a hell of a lot, but we have to move on, and this is the way that we move on.
With this vehicle we can move on to a better place for New Zealand. Let us deal with the issues of unemployment and economic recovery, instead of getting bogged down in what I term an unholy argument about race.
: Firstly, I acknowledge the officials, who have been here for a long time this week. I thank them for being here and for the help they gave to the Māori Affairs Committee and this Parliament.
I will raise a couple of issues. Firstly, I will point out the logical flaw in Paul Quinn’s argument. Paul Quinn said that codifying the relevant tests for the establishment of customary interests settles the issue and will provide an enduring settlement, but I ask how that can be when the Māori Party, the coalition party that the Government relies
upon to pass this legislation, says it disagrees. The reason Labour withdrew from a consensus on this legislation was that it had turned into a fiction. Māori Party members could not bring themselves to say that they accepted that this legislation was an enduring deal. If they had done, maybe Parliament would have had a different outcome now, and we would just about have unanimity on this thing. The Prime Minister did not go to the Māori Party and say that the Government needed it to acknowledge this bill as a full and final settlement of the framework for the settlement of customary interests in the foreshore and seabed. It is a failure of leadership, in the view of the Labour Party, on the part of both National and the Māori Party that they did not get to that point. The objective those members set for themselves was that this bill would settle things. So there is a logical flaw there.
The other thing I thought was interesting in Paul Quinn’s contribution was that he spent the first part of it saying how great it was that the Māori Party and National were cooperating on this issue. That is interesting, because a lot of people are effectively saying—and they are right—that a vote for the Māori Party is a vote for National. From the Māori Party supporters’ point of view, they see that as being a plague upon the Māori Party house. A lot of other people are saying that a vote for National is a vote for the Māori Party, and that is being seen as a plague upon National in the eyes of a lot of voters. It is really a plague upon both their houses. In a process sense this legislation is being pushed through quickly, even under the shadow of the Canterbury tragedy and the Christchurch earthquake, because both the Māori Party and National know those lines are correct; a vote for the Māori Party is a vote for National, and a vote for National is a vote for the Māori Party. That is why the select committee process was truncated. Both the Māori Party and National want to get this legislation off the agenda, because it is a plague upon both their houses.
I will also deal with something that the Hon Mita Ririnui said. I thought his contribution in respect of the member for Te Tai Tonga was appropriate. He was not making a personal attack upon her; he was just asking how she could stand there and pretend that the bill delivers what she says it delivers for Ngāi Tahu, when it does not. Ngāi Tahu do not favour the bill. They say the bill should go down.
Hon Tau Henare: She’s not there as a representative of Ngāi Tahu; she’s there as a representative of
Te Wai Pounamu.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I agree that she is not here as a representative of Ngāi Tahu—her interests are broader than that—but she pretends that the bill delivers to Ngāi Tahu something that meets their aspirations, when it does not. It most plainly does not. I do not necessarily agree with Ngāi Tahu’s view on what the common law test would be if it went to court. In fact, I do not agree with them, but I do believe they should have the right to explore it, and I do believe them when they say their sense of injustice will last for generations, and will not go away through the passage of this legislation. Mita Ririnui’s criticisms of Rahui Katene were not personal attacks upon her; they were actually just showing that the position she takes is wrong and is ignorant in respect of what the bill delivers for Ngāi Tahu, which is very little, if anything.
In respect of that issue the Māori Party is hoist with its own petard, because through its—in my view irresponsible at times—rhetoric at one edge of the debate, during the debate on the last version of the legislation it created an expectation amongst Māoridom that would never have been delivered by the Ngāti Apa decision. The Māori Party is being hoist with its own petard because it exaggerated to the people it purports to represent an outcome that would never have been achieved. That is not what the law ever said.
The other thing Paul Quinn said is that the legislation makes the foreshore and seabed safe, and everyone can have access to them. That is a return to some of the arguments of the past that I did not like. I acknowledge that in Tau Henare’s
contribution he made it clear that access to the beaches has never been an issue in relation to the Foreshore and Seabed Act. That was a fiction put about by Don Brash and other members of National. I have actually read out their contributions in the Committee stage, including Nick Smith’s—
Hon Tau Henare: And yours.
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, we actually said in this House that access to the beaches was not at risk. We made it absolutely explicit in our contributions that it was never at risk. In fact, we also legislated through the Foreshore and Seabed Act that it was not at risk.
I agree with Tau Henare that access across people’s land to the foreshore and seabed is a completely different issue. It has never been an issue in terms of the Ngāti Apa foreshore and seabed decision. There are places in New Zealand where, as my colleague Parekura Horomia has said, access down to the beach is increasingly difficult. That is a different issue, I agree, but it is a practical issue in parts where some private owners are exercising their property right to exclude others and are stopping people from going across their land in a way that was not the case in prior years. That is not a foreshore and seabed issue, as Parekura Horomia makes clear; it is another important issue.
The legislation has a new name. It is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. It could equally be called the “Replacement Foreshore and Seabed Bill”, because it is actually not much different from the original Act. It is not much different. The main difference is that someone who has proved to the court that they have a territorial customary right now does not have to go to the Crown to negotiate to get their rights back; they can get a remedy from the court. That is an important change that Labour agrees with and indeed submitted to the review committee. Yes, the threshold tests are a bit different, but they are not very different. The creation of the new definition of public space as a space that somehow no one owns is a legal fiction. What matters is not whether the space is held by the Crown or held in some other name; what matters is the different rights people have in respect of that space, and those bundles of rights are largely unchanged.
I am saddened at the lack of leadership shown by both the Māori Party and National in not getting us to a settlement. That is the task they set us, and because National was not willing to call the bluff of the Māori Party and say it could take it or leave it, and because of the unwillingness of the Māori Party to offer up acceptance that the settlement was fair, we have left New Zealand with uncertainty—
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: No, you’re the ones who’ve done that by your hype, actually.
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I tell Dr Mapp that that is not correct. I might quote again what he said in the Committee stage of the last version; he said that large tracts of the foreshore and seabed would not be accessible to non-Māori. That is something that should stand as a stain upon that member’s record in this House. The reality is that this bill does not settle the issue, because the Māori Party and National have not been able to reach an accommodation between themselves acknowledging that this legislation is full and final. The Prime Minister has not required that of the Māori Party and the Māori Party has not offered it. John Armstrong was right when he made that analysis in the
New Zealand Herald. National moved a long way. Labour was willing to move a little way. We did not actually have to move very far, because we were a lot closer to the Māori Party than National was. But we were willing to move even a bit further than that. The Māori Party had to move just a little way. It actually had to show a bit of leadership. As Tau Henare said, its members are not here to represent just an iwi interest. We are here representing the interests of all—
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: They actually have shown leadership by their vote today.
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, they have said at co-leader and senior whip level that they do not accept that this bill is a settlement, and that it is but a first step. That is a failure of political leadership that is bad for this country. The access issues were never an issue. Sadly, this bill should be called the “Failed Attempt at Settlement Bill”. I think it is lamentable, because we got very close. We had the opportunity. Even if one of the Supplementary Order Papers that would flick it all back to the courts had been voted for, that would have settled it, too. There were a couple of ways in which this bill could have resulted in settlement, but it did not occur.
: I acknowledge the contribution of David Parker. He has contributed significantly to this debate, both in the House and in the Māori Affairs Committee. Some comments Mr Parker has made this afternoon I strongly disagree with, and I hope to explain that in the course of the next 5 minutes; if not, then on Tuesday.
Mr Parker began his address this afternoon by acknowledging the officials, and let me reiterate that. I thank the officials in the Chamber this afternoon for their support, and I thank them for their advice. They are always willing to contribute to, certainly, my understanding, and that of the other members of the select committee. ACT members kept the officials and the other staff in the precinct of Parliament last night until after midnight. We are sorry for the inconvenience, but we do not apologise for it. The reason we did that—and I say this to the officials and to the staff of the parliamentary complex—is that we strongly oppose the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. We said we would fight this bill every step of the way. We have done that, and we will continue to fight it next week. We do not resile from the decisions we have taken and the actions we have taken.
I will point out why we are right. If people listened to some of the speeches this afternoon, they would understand that. What did we have from Tau Henare this afternoon? He said within 36 hours of the decision from Dame Sian Elias in the Court of Appeal in 2003, the politicians had jumped out and created a mess. The politicians had jumped out and created a mess. He went on to say that this National - Māori Party Government has attempted to get it right, but only time will tell. Well, what a great contradiction. What Tau Henare has acknowledged this afternoon is that politicians’ interfering in this matter has created a mess. One would think it would be a pretty simple exercise, then, for the National Government to use its majority to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, and to send the matter back to the courts. But, no, it actually wants to add to the mess. National members want to add to the mess and confusion that Mr Henare has accused Labour of creating.
Then there was Rahui Katene. In fact, Rahui Katene has made a number of interjections this afternoon that would not have been placed on the record. I want to write those into the record, because the interjections I have heard—albeit quietly—from Rahui Katene this afternoon are absolutely correct. They are absolutely correct, and I believe that this bill is a big victory for the Māori Party. It is a massive victory for the Māori Party. As Tariana Turia co-wrote last week: “For a small party, we have achieved amazing results in a short time.” Rahui Katene, in response to some of Mita Ririnui’s comments, continually called out: “I understand the right to go to court.” Well, I understand the right to go to court, too, and the ACT Party understands the right to go to court.