Wednesday, 26 July 2006

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Under Standing Order 348 I propose to make a ministerial statement. The New Zealand Government deplores the Israeli bombing of the United Nations post in Khiam, southern Lebanon, that killed four United Nations peacekeeping personnel earlier today. Other United Nations personnel have been wounded in earlier attacks by both sides. The Government is deeply shocked that neutral United Nations posts have been caught up in the violence in southern Lebanon. We are instructing the New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, Rosemary Banks, to discuss urgently with the United Nations the ongoing status and safety of its missions in Lebanon.

The United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) has staff in Lebanon, and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), is based there. New Zealand has New Zealand Defence Force personnel serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation, including two who are in Lebanon as military observers. In addition, a third New Zealander is a UN contractor working on de-mining operations in Lebanon. New Zealander Major General Clive Lilley heads the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization and is based in Jerusalem.

In respect of today’s bombing of the UNIFIL post in Khiam, New Zealand joins the Secretary-General of the United Nations in calling on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident, and demands that any further attack on UN positions and personnel must stop. New Zealand will be conveying its concerns at this attack to Israel. New Zealand has consistently and strongly urged all sides to pull back from violence, observe international law, and allow international facilitators and mediators a chance to put a peace process together. We reiterate that call today. Just as Hezbollah is urged to stop its attacks, so must Israel cease the disproportionate violence that is striking civilians, infrastructure, and United Nations personnel and posts.

There should be an immediate ceasefire, but in the absence of that we call on both sides to cease attacks in the vicinity of civilians and UN posts and personnel. A ceasefire in Lebanon and resolution of the immediate causes of the conflict must be followed by negotiations for a comprehensive peace in the region, if such crises are to be avoided in the future.

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): The National Party also deeply regrets the loss of four United Nations peacekeepers in the strike in Lebanon. More generally we deeply regret the loss of innocent lives on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese border. Tragically, there appears little prospect of lasting peace in the Middle East until all parties recognise the right of Israel to exist. In the meantime we certainly share the Government’s desire that there be a ceasefire as soon as possible, so that diplomacy can take over where warfare clearly is having such frequently disastrous results.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party also endorses the Prime Minister’s condemnation of the bombing by Israeli planes of the UN post in Lebanon. I am sure there will be international condemnation of that action.

But it is unfortunate that it takes an attack on a UN post really to wake up the world to what is going on in Israel and Lebanon. Almost 400 Lebanese and almost 40 Israelis have been killed, and much of Lebanon, particularly south Lebanon, has been levelled by Israeli attacks. It is quite clear that both Israel and Hezbollah are committing war crimes as defined in our own legislation passed in setting up the International Criminal Court and New Zealand’s participation in it. Both sides are targeting civilian areas, with Israel’s attacks clearly being the most destructive and, in fact, seeming to be collectively punishing the Lebanese nation for the actions of Hezbollah.

The Green Party endorses the Prime Minister’s call for an immediate ceasefire. I think it is important to be even-handed and I am a little concerned that the Prime Minister says Hezbollah should stop its attacks, yet she asks Israel only to cease its “disproportionate” violence. We should be calling on Israel to stop all its attacks and stating that any ceasefire must be unconditional on both sides, if we are to work to a long-term resolution of the problems of the region, which includes a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that recognises the rights of the Palestinian people to their own State.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First endorses 100 percent the comments of the Prime Minister. This war has gone on long enough. It is time it stopped and diplomacy, or discussion, took its place. It is time for those countries that have influence to use their influence to good effect. Innocent people are getting killed. Infrastructure is being destroyed for no sound reason. People are losing their livelihoods for no sound reason. Now is the time for talking.

This war must end. We must use every bit of influence we have to bring it to a conclusion before it destroys everything, including the reputations of those who should know better.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Kaikōrero, tēnā tātou e te Whare. E tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i ngā kōrero a te Pirimia, kia takatakahia e ngā mahi kōhuru a ngā Hūrae. Me mutu ngā mahi kōhuru i ngā tāngata o Lebanon. He tuku aroha tēnei mai i te Pāti Māori ki ngā whānau ō rātou kua mate. Ehara tēnei mahi te kōhuru tangata i te mahi kia mahia ki a wai rānei, hakoa ko wai, hakoa nō hea. E mea ana mātou, kia ū ki te āio ki ngā whenua kei te mura o te ahi. Ko tēnei mahi whakapahūpahū pū kōhuru tangata, he mahi kino. E mōhio tūturu ana mātou ki aua momo mahi. Kia ora tātou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to us in the House. The Māori Party endorses the Prime Minister’s statement that acts of murder by the Jews should be stopped. Such acts against the people of Lebanon must cease. We send our condolences from the Māori Party to the families who have suffered losses. Murdering people is not condoned, regardless of whom it is inflicted upon, or where they are from. We say that peace should prevail in countries where war is occurring. Armed warfare in which people are murdered represents acts of violence. We are truly aware of the outcome of such actions. Greetings to us.]

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): United Future endorses the Prime Minister’s statement of concern at the escalating violence in the Middle East that has culminated in the senseless killing of four UN peacekeepers in Khiam in southern Lebanon.

This horrific escalation that has exploded in recent weeks is a further reminder that there can be no lasting peace, or no lasting road map towards peace, in the Middle East until the provisions of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 are given credence, and the right of Israel and the Palestinians to live within secure and recognised boundaries is adopted as an international commitment. Although the immediate pressure must be on both Israel and Hezbollah to cease the violence at this time, I strongly believe that the pressure must go on those nations that support those countries to work towards achieving the peaceful outcome that Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 envisaged. Until there can be an accepted set of ground rules about what constitutes both the Jewish State and a legitimate, self-determining Palestinian State, these types of fracas that explode into mini-wars are inevitable and will continue.

We want to see an end to the violence now through a ceasefire brokered through the United States, the United Nations, and other agencies with an interest, but we want to see the same vigour brought to bear to ensure that the road map can be implemented and the rights of both nations to live in freedom and security can be established.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): The ACT party rises to join with the Prime Minister in deploring the loss of life in the Middle East, and especially the four UN peacekeepers. But we do not endorse the Prime Minister’s statement. In particular, we take issue with the Prime Minister’s repetition of the statement of “disproportionate violence”. I can do no better than to refer to page B3 of today’s New Zealand Herald, where Dominic Lawson, writing for the Independent, states: “What is the proportionate response to a terrorist organisation which repeatedly sends rockets packed with ball bearings to cause maximum civilian casualties in your main domestic tourist resort? And what do you do if that organisation, backed by Iran and Syria, also has two ministers in the Government of the country from which they are sending those rockets?”.

I ask New Zealanders and this Parliament to consider what New Zealand’s response would be if we had to confront a neighbour right on our borders who would commit such atrocities, and whether we would stand idly by and talk about a proportionate response. I say to this House and to New Zealand that until Hezbollah stops the violence and recognises the State of Israel’s right to exist, then we cannot expect peace, and that our focus should be on achieving that peace, not on repeating propaganda. Thank you.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive): The Progressive party fully endorses the concerns expressed by the Prime Minister to the House today. Protecting innocent civilians or peacekeepers from harm should be the first priority of international diplomatic efforts in Lebanon, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. Once a ceasefire is in place to protect civilians, then attention will need to be paid to strengthening the foundations for a solution that offers justice and dignity to all sides of this conflict.

New Zealand has a long history of involvement in this region, which stretches back to the role New Zealand soldiers played in pushing the imperial Turkish army out of Palestine in World War I. The first Labour Government played a significant role in the 1940s in campaigning for international support for the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. It is therefore with a deep sense of disappointment and regret that many New Zealanders of my generation see and read news reports of the Israeli defence force, one of the strongest armies in the world, inflicting the scale of damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure that we have seen over the past few months, in both the occupied Palestine territories and, in the past 2 weeks, Lebanon.

New Zealanders will continue to contribute, of course, to the peaceful development of the region, but we must surely know by now that a durable and sustainable peace will come only when there is justice and dignity for all sides of this conflict.

New Zealand will, of course, have to give serious consideration to whether keeping our own observers in place in Lebanon is justified under the circumstances surrounding the untimely deaths of four United Nations peacekeepers there.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition and all those party spokespersons who have supported the statement made on behalf of the Government in the House today. I want to say that New Zealand, under many Governments over a long period of time, has taken an even-handed position on the Middle East crisis. The position is that which the Hon Peter Dunne referred to: we are looking for an outcome in the Middle East based on two States, each recognising the other, with secure boundaries. That is the only basis on which a durable peace settlement can be founded.

I say to the spokesperson from the Green Party that the Government’s statements have been very carefully balanced to condemn violence on both sides. Two wrongs do not ever make a right, and we would like a ceasefire now. I am sure all members would want the thoughts of this Parliament to be conveyed to the Parliaments of those countries from which the four deceased peacekeepers come. Those names and countries have not been revealed at this point by the United Nations, while they contact the families and countries concerned, but in due course they will be made public.

Speaker’s Rulings

Privilege—Taito Phillip Field

Madam SPEAKER: Last week I received letters from the Leader of the Opposition raising a matter of privilege arising out of a report to the Prime Minister on matters relating to Taito Phillip Field. I have found that no question of privilege is involved. Normally in these circumstances the Speaker does not give reasons for such a finding. But the Speaker does have authority to make a statement to the House if the Speaker considers that circumstances warrant this—see Speaker’s ruling 171/2. Because of the widespread interest in this matter, this is a case in which I have decided to explain the basis for my decision to the House.

One aspect of parliamentary privilege is the power of the House to punish conduct that it considers to be a contempt of the House. Before 1996 the circumstances in which the House might invoke this power were ill-defined and were the subject of justifiable criticism on this ground. In an attempt to meet this criticism, the House adopted what are now Standing Orders 399 and 400, defining the circumstances in which the House might use its power. Standing Order 399 makes a general statement about contempt being an act or omission that: “(a) obstructs or impedes the House in the performance of its functions, or (b) obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of the member’s or officer’s duty, or (c) has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result.” Standing Order 400 then gives a number of specific instances of specific actions or omissions that may treated as contempt. These are not exhaustive and any other conduct that falls within Standing Order 399 can be treated as a contempt if the House decides that it is worthy of censure.

The Leader of the Opposition does not allege that any conduct revealed in the report falls specifically within Standing Order 400. He alleges that Mr Field has used his position as a member to secure a financial benefit and that this has brought the House into disrepute, thus constituting a contempt under the general provisions of Standing Order 399. The particular conduct that it is alleged Mr Field has engaged in is in receiving services on his properties in Auckland and Samoa in return for assistance Mr Field provided for immigration applications. This assistance took the form of submissions to Ministers considering those applications.

Standing Order 399 and parliamentary privilege generally are designed to protect the integrity of the parliamentary process. Actions that obstruct or impede the House “in the performance of its functions” may be a contempt. If a member of Parliament accepts a benefit for actions that a member has taken, or is to take, in respect of proceedings in the House or at a committee, that would be a contempt. Standing Order 400(i), (j), and (k) describes actions that fall into this area. If any evidence had been presented to me showing that Mr Field used parliamentary processes—such as a question or debate—to advance the immigration applications, a question of privilege would then arise. But no such evidence has been presented. His interventions appear to have been confined to making submissions to Ministers—a common practice amongst members. As the services that Mr Field received are not linked to the parliamentary process, there is no question of privilege on which I can act.

However, it is appropriate that I add something to this finding. The allegations against Mr Field really amount to questions about the general standard of conduct expected of someone who holds the office of member of Parliament. Parliamentary privilege covers some of this ground, but by no means all. Privilege does not, for example, extend to most of a member’s interactions with constituents. Thus, communications with constituents are not subject to absolute privilege in the law of defamation. Only where interactions lead a member to take a parliamentary action—such as lodging a question or speaking in debate—is privilege engaged. Nor does privilege extend to other activities engaged in by members outside the House. Thus, in recent years, members have been charged with crimes or found in contempt of court without any question of parliamentary privilege being involved.

In 1994 the House of Commons, recognising that parliamentary privilege did not cover members’ general conduct adequately, adopted a code of conduct for members with the purpose of providing “a framework within which acceptable conduct should be judged”. The Privileges Committee was converted into a Standards and Privileges Committee, and a parliamentary officer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, was created to investigate complaints of breach of the code. These rules operate alongside, but distinct from, parliamentary privilege. Most Australian legislatures have also adopted codes of conduct that supplement the parliamentary privilege rules.

In 1997 the Government Administration Committee recommended that there be a study of this system in New Zealand and successive Standings Orders Committees have heard submissions on whether there should be a code of conduct, even as recently as last week. But to date, apart from where the privilege rules set out in Standing Order 400 apply, the House has not adopted any rules or guidelines relating to the standards of conduct expected by members. This is a matter for the House to attend to.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it would be an understatement to say that we are disappointed by your ruling. It would be a further understatement to say that we are surprised by your ruling. Although you have given us a reasonably extensive rationale behind your reasoning, I do not accept that what you said in relation to Standing Order 400(i,), (j), and (k) is relevant in this case, or that this case is excluded from scrutiny under those paragraphs. We did not supply you with a list of alleged breaches, because we thought that the 180 pages of Mr Ingram’s report would be relatively self-explanatory.

You will note, Madam Speaker, that in one part of the report Mr Ingram goes into discussion about the way in which Ministers of Immigration over a period of years have dealt with requests from members of Parliament—a subject that is a cause of a degree of angst by those who represent people in immigration cases who are not members of Parliament. Essentially, the Ministers who were spoken to said that if a member of Parliament makes an application, then that application carries a great deal more weight than if it were to come from someone else. Indeed, Mr O’Connor went into some explanation in the report as to why he felt a member of Parliament listing pleadings on behalf of someone who wanted an immigration preferment carried a great deal more weight if it were supported by a member of Parliament. Surely that is part of the privilege of being a member of Parliament, and it surely is part of the requirement of being a member of Parliament that a privilege like that is not abused.

The concern that we have is that this is a case where a large percentage of the public believe there is an element of corruption involved. In many ways that taints the whole of Parliament. So our disappointment is that Parliament, through its Privileges Committee, will not be able to protect itself from the allegation that Parliament is now complicit in the cover-up of that corruption. I would accordingly ask you, Madam Speaker, to reconsider Standing Order 400(h) on the basis of the testimony given by Mr O’Connor in Mr Ingram’s report, which is testimony that I understand is backed by previous immigration Ministers and which makes it very clear that the opportunity to advocate very directly on the part of someone in an immigration matter is a privilege of this House.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I think the member quite simply confused two different meanings of the word “privilege”, and in one of those was extending the use of the word “privilege” to mean something rather more than it does in the circumstance. Clearly, people have an assumption that approaches from members of Parliament on immigration matters will be dealt with with some care by a Minister of Immigration. That is why the member’s colleagues frequently make representation to the Minister of Immigration on immigration matters.

In that respect, however, a member does not have a specific parliamentary privilege in the sense that parliamentary privilege is covered by the Standing Orders. Parliamentary privilege covers a much narrower range of matters than matters that we might regard as privileges held by members of Parliament in the broad and common-language sense of that word. That includes, for example, a privilege in relation to parliamentary travel, in relation to telephones, and in relation to a whole number of matters that are themselves not necessarily matters of parliamentary privilege at all.

In relation, of course, to Standing Order 400(h), that merely relates quite specifically to the declaration of pecuniary interest. Nothing in the Ingram report comes anywhere close to that, nor, indeed, do the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, as I understand the letter he has sent from what I have heard about it within the House here and from statements made by members opposite about that particular complaint. The member is stretching the bow far too long in that regard.

For example, in your own statement, Madam Speaker, you refer to being found guilty of a contempt of court, which, of course, the Hon Dr Nick Smith was. When he entered this House he was applauded by his parliamentary colleagues for having received that conviction. One might well regard it as some form of breach of privilege that people could make such a public display of affirmation of support for breaking the law. But that, of course, is not in itself a breach of parliamentary privilege. It might be regarded as bad form, bad behaviour, or, indeed, even perhaps a contempt for the law, but not a breach of parliamentary privilege. Your order, Madam Speaker, quite properly, confines itself to matters of parliamentary privilege.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I do not want to contest your ruling, Madam Speaker; it is not appropriate that this Parliament do that. You have received a complaint of breach of privilege and you have ruled accordingly. Of course, I accept that 100 percent. But perhaps I could be helpful to the National Party and, indeed, to this Parliament by pointing out, and asking through you, that it would be quite within the bounds of the appropriate select committee to undertake an inquiry into, say, the Minister of Immigration’s discretions in granting permits and how that process might be done. I am thinking of the Commerce Committee or such a committee that would draft the terms of reference and undertake an inquiry. That inquiry would be quite within order. Indeed, you may recall that the Finance and Expenditure Committee with Mr Clayton Cosgrove, who has some responsibility now for immigration matters, I think spent two parliamentary terms trying to undertake an inquiry into my good self as a way of getting around the question of privilege.

So it is quite possible for Parliament to make an inquiry into what has gone on here, through a wider inquiry within the terms of a select committee. We could indeed achieve the aims that we seek to achieve.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their contributions, and I suggest that a copy of the statement is available in members’ boxes, if they wish to consider it. I make the point that once members read it I hope they will appreciate that there is a difference between parliamentary privilege as such, which is quite a technical area, and the member’s standards or conduct. That is why I took the unusual course of making the statement to the House today.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a question of clarification. In the course of this discussion, reference has been made to Standing Order 400. Standing Order 400(h) states: “as a member, knowingly providing false or misleading information in a return of pecuniary interests:”. My question for you, Madam Speaker, is should further investigation of matters raised in the Ingram report give rise to the possibility that the member did make a false and misleading return of pecuniary interests, is it possible for you then to reconsider the matter of privilege? The Ingram report lays out circumstances in which the member received what amounts to a gift—that is, in the terms of the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill, there was something of benefit to him for which he did not pay. In the same way as we have to declare free plane trips offered by a lobbyist, the member had his house painted at rates well below the market rates, or for which he did not pay at all, and the scope of the pecuniary interests legislation is such that he should have declared that as a gift. It is not clear whether that is exactly the case—it would take some investigation to establish it. You have dealt with the application that was put to you, Madam Speaker, but in the interests of demonstrating to the public that Parliament does have an interest in the standards of conduct of an MP, and in enforcing its own rules, would you consider a privilege application based on that Standing Order?

Madam SPEAKER: As the member said, that was not a matter raised with me in the original application. Of course, any matter that is put to me will be considered seriously. But as the member was seeking clarification, I also point out that he should note the date upon which the pecuniary interests register did come into force, which was 17 September.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): I do not rise to contest your ruling. There is a proper process by which members can do that, and that will, obviously, lead members on this side of the House to reflect on the written version of your ruling over the next day or so. But, as we do so, I ask whether you will give some further thought to elaborating on the ruling you have made.

What you have done, Madam Speaker, if I might say, is take a narrow view of Standing Orders 399 and 400. The provision in Standing Order 399 that refers to obstructing or impeding the House in the performance of its functions is a very general one, and some members certainly put the Ingram report in that context and regard it as having very considerable application. Standing Order 400 contains some very narrow examples of the types of contempt that might be held to exist by the Speaker. It does not seek in any way to clarify the very general terms of Standing Order 399.

Madam Speaker, if your ruling is to stand as the standard for the House, then I am sure that members on this side will at least want to consider making some changes to the Standing Orders. In order that we might have a strong base for doing so, I invite you to be a little more definitive as to why the behaviour outlined in the Ingram report cannot be held by you to be covered by the very general provision in Standing Order 399(a) as it refers to obstructing or impeding the House in the performance of its functions. That will give us a more certain base on which to consider some representations to the Standing Orders Committee. I believe that members of the public, when confronted with this ruling, would expect us to do that. I simply invite you, Madam Speaker, to give us that further assistance as we give serious consideration to the matters you have outlined to us today.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is fairly difficult to take seriously that submission, because it relates to, as the member said, the House in the performance of its functions. Those functions obviously include such matters as conduct at question time, the examination of Ministers, consideration of legislation, the work we carry through select committees, and so on and so forth. Nothing in this whole matter, at all, in any shape or form, has obstructed or impeded the House, or indeed any select committee, in the performance of its functions. Indeed, one might suggest that it has actually assisted the House in the performance of its functions, as it has clearly given the Opposition the opportunity to ask many parliamentary questions and to engage in other behaviour in terms of parliamentary activity. But nothing could possibly be presented to this House that shows that the House has in any way been unable to carry out its functions as a result of whatever actions Taito Phillip Field undertook, or of the Ingram report on those actions.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I am to accept the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House earlier this afternoon when he said that I am confused about the ruling that you have given, then I guess that confusion would be about the privilege that someone has as a member of Parliament, and the privileges that go along with being a member of this House. For many outside, that will be something that is not easily considered; nor are the two easily separated. That is where the whole House risks being brought into disrepute by virtue of the corruption allegations made in this particular case.

So I seek leave for the Ingram report to be referred to the Privileges Committee in order that the committee might bring down a determination that makes it clear just what the difference is between the privileges of this House and the privilege that comes with being a member of Parliament.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was going to respond to that point of order. I will take it as a separate point of order. If the member cares to refer to Standing Order 23, he will find reference to the fact that the Speaker lays claim to the privileges of the House: “On being confirmed by the Governor-General as Speaker of a new Parliament, the Speaker, on behalf of the House, lays claim to all the House’s privileges; especially to freedom of speech in debate, to free access to the Governor-General whenever occasion may require it, and that the most favourable construction may be put on all the House’s proceedings.”, which is a somewhat separate matter.

Those parliamentary privilege matters do not include issues like a Minister taking care to ensure that he or she considers carefully submissions from a member of Parliament. It does not cover issues such as personal privileges in relation to, for example, telephones, airfares, or whatever they may be. The Speaker does not go to the Governor-General to lay claim to those things under the guise of parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege exists at a higher level and for a broader public purpose than that and, specifically, with the right to free speech within this House, without that being brought into consideration externally within the courts.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If we are going to have to listen to Dr Cullen’s version of privilege, then he needs to think more broadly. The reason Parliament has privileges of the nature that Dr Cullen refers to is that the public believe that that is the best way to expedite democracy and public affairs to create a privileged environment in which some things can be done that cannot be done outside. But those privileges are earned; they are not written in the constitution. They are a convention, and they are earned by members of Parliament acting in a way that is consistent with the public interest.

That is why it is such a regret to the National Party that the Speaker has taken a narrow procedural view of this matter. The privilege of Parliament is earned; it is not written in concrete or handed down from above. It is a function of the behaviour of the people who inhabit Parliament. As long as we behave ourselves consistent with the public interest, then this institution will be accorded those privileges. When a member behaves in a way that is totally inconsistent with the public interest, and entirely in his private interest, he is undermining absolutely the reason why Parliament has privileges. That is why we take such exception to the ruling and the behaviour.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): It is quite right to take a narrow view. Indeed, the member is completely mistaken in his view of the origins of parliamentary privilege. I saw two of his legal colleagues in the second row looking somewhat askance when those claims were made. They, of course, arise out of the assertion of our privileges vis-à-vis the king, the role of Government, and our ability to speak freely and to raise matters without let or hindrance than to be dealt with in the king’s courts in punishment for matters raised within this House. The member, unfortunately, by going into that further area really does cast aspersions upon his colleague Dr Nick Smith. If being found guilty of a contempt of court and having one’s colleagues clap in this House in support of that conviction is not exactly the kind of matter he has just raised, then I have failed to understand what possibly was.

Madam SPEAKER: I think I have heard enough, if Mr Brownlee does not mind. I have appreciated the points that all members have made. May I suggest to members that they do look at the ruling and look perhaps a little more generally at the difference between the way in which the word “privilege” is used in a general sense and parliamentary privilege as it is defined within our Standing Orders. I would also suggest to members, and in fact they have suggested it themselves, that this matter is the responsibility of members, and that is why I took the opportunity to make that distinction and perhaps suggest a way forward for members, because it is a serious matter.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Twice in the debate on this point of order Dr Cullen has chosen to make mention of the issues involving myself with regard to some constituents, which led to contempt of court charges being laid—in fact, when you were Attorney-General. There is a world of difference between a member of Parliament going the extra mile for constituents who wanted to see their child—in which there was absolutely no personal interest or gain for myself; in fact, exactly the opposite—and the actions that were taken by Phillip Field that were to benefit him privately. I think that needs to be put on the public record.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that but I just remind members there is a general debate coming up later.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Is it a new point of order?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It is a very, very new point and it is on a very different aspect. I would like some clarification on this matter. My view of the parliamentary Standing Orders is that some of them cover privilege, but Standing Orders 399 and 400 cover issues called “contempt”. The one part of Standing Order 400 that you did not refer to—you talked about paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k)—paragraph (f), has something that certainly for myself as a member of Parliament needs to be considered very carefully. Standing Order 400 states: “Without limiting the generality of Standing Order 399, the House may treat as a contempt any of the following: … (f) as a member, failing to declare, before participating in the consideration of any item of business, any financial interest that the member has in that business:”.

I am happy to admit to this House that as a member of Parliament I often take up issues of immigration with Ministers and seek them to make a favourable ruling on behalf of a constituent; I openly declare that. But I have always thought that if I were to be in any way a recipient of some sort of gain, be it financial, special treatment, or anything else, then because of Standing Order 400(f) I would make it very clear in my applications to the Minister that I am seeking a favourable response because this bloke is going to cut my lawns in return for this. I would have felt that I had to say that, as part of it.

Madam Speaker, Standing Order 400(f) is very clear, and you have not raised it. Taito Phillip Field did not raise these matters with the Minister of Immigration, as Minister to Minister. He raised them as a member of Parliament on behalf of his constituents. He had constituents seeking some help. I think part of the business we get involved in as members of Parliament, as well as asking written and oral questions and as well as taking part in debate, is pursuing issues with Ministers.

It is a parliamentary duty that we take part in. We actually engage in that by way of correspondence and try to put the very best and most favourable case for the people we represent. I think if you take careful consideration, Madam Speaker—and I ask you to do this—you will find that Standing Order 400(f) would, at the bare minimum, require Mr Field to explain, on the number of cases he was taking, that those people were, in return for that, taking part in some activities for which he would be getting a benefit.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): Putting aside the consideration of whether there was any financial interest—I make no comment on that—the key point, of course, is: “before participating in the consideration of any item of business,”. That refers to the consideration of any item of business in Parliament, not outside Parliament.

Madam SPEAKER: Exactly. I again ask members perhaps to take the time to consider the ruling and also, perhaps more generally, the distinctions between the general use of privilege and parliamentary privilege.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson may have been a little hard on Mr Field in this circumstance. I think Mr Field probably did think he had made it clear that he was getting a pecuniary interest, because he actually conducted a field trip of Ministers to his house in Samoa. The Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Paul Swain went there and met the painter—the Hon Paul Swain was the Minister of Immigration at the time. So I think Mr Field did, in fact, think he had told his ministerial colleagues that he had all these Thai people working for him on his properties throughout the country and that he was putting pecuniary gain directly into his pocket. However, if that is not a breach of this House, then what is?

Madam SPEAKER: I think we could save that for the general debate.

Sittings of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday, I seek leave for the sitting to be suspended for the dinner adjournment immediately after the valedictory statement from the Hon Jim Sutton.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Report

1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What steps has she taken to satisfy herself about the actions of members of her executive named in the Ingram report?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I have read the report. I have discussed the matter with those concerned.

Dr Don Brash: What has the Prime Minister done to clarify the “real uncertainty” identified by Dr Ingram as to exactly when the then Associate Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor, knew that the Thai national on whose behalf Taito Phillip Field was seeking a ministerial discretion was also working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have seen the report in which Dr Ingram sets out what he believes to have been the most likely sequence of events. I accept his judgment on that. I also accept his judgment that the decision made by Mr O’Connor may be regarded as a justifiable exercise of that broad, discretionary statutory power he had.

Dr Don Brash: Is the Prime Minister aware of the clear evidence presented by New Zealand Immigration Service officials, including an explicit file note and a telephone record, that Mr O’Connor knew that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa prior to his granting him a work permit; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am aware of the report and I am aware of the evidence of the officials. I am also aware of the evidence of the private secretary and I am aware that she was clear that she was unaware of the information at the time Mr O’Connor made his decision.

Dr Don Brash: Why does the Prime Minister choose to ignore a phone log and a file note from the head of the Samoa office of the Immigration Service, both of which make it clear that Mr O’Connor knew that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house 14 days before he granted the work permit, and instead accept the bland statements of Mr O’Connor, who told a newspaper yesterday that he could not remember when he was told?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member needs to read the report carefully, because Dr Ingram does not draw the inference that Mr O’Connor knew about that issue when he made the decision.

Dr Don Brash: What assurances has she sought from the Hon Paul Swain and the Hon Phil Goff regarding their visit to Mr Field’s house in Samoa, and has she asked them whether they discussed the status of the Thai national while they were at that house?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I discussed these matters with those Ministers back in September or October last year when the matters became public, and I am absolutely satisfied that neither of them knew the identity of anybody hanging around the house at the time. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I called Dr Don Brash, but in the barrage, of course, no one heard me. So would members please just keep the level down.

Dr Don Brash: Is the Prime Minister seriously asking this House to accept that Mr O’Connor exercised his discretion without knowing of Mr Field’s involvement, despite the clear evidence from the file note and the phone log that he did; that Mr Swain, the then Minister of Immigration, visited Mr Field’s house in Samoa and met the Thai nationals working on Mr Field’s house without realising whom he had met; and that Mr Field, who had gone to great lengths to get Mr Siriwan to Samoa, did not realise he was actually working on his house there—because that, effectively, is what she is asking the House to swallow?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am advising the House to accept Dr Ingram’s conclusions, which do not bear out the smears of the Leader of the Opposition.

Rodney Hide: Has the Prime Minister ever asked Taito Phillip Field whether he was advocating to Ministers on behalf of illegal immigrants in return for favours; if not, why did she not ask him; if so, what was his response?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I, obviously, as leader of the Labour Party, have had contact with Mr Field on this matter over quite a long period of time, and I am satisfied that he did not make such requests.

Rodney Hide: In relation to the Ingram report, was the Prime Minister concerned to learn that the honourable Taito Phillip Field was writing as a member of Parliament to advocate that people vote for the Labour ticket, including for a man whom Mr Field knew was to go up on fraud charges and, indeed, that Mr Phillip Field was using parliamentary resources in order to do so—was that par for the course for Labour MPs?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would be very surprised if Labour members of Parliament were not supporting Labour candidates in their area. Of course, from time to time candidates of political parties do let their parties down, like the ACT candidate who posed as a paraplegic to collect money and kept a lot of it for himself.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be that the Prime Minister chose not to address my question, but my concern was actually the use of parliamentary resources. Am I to take it that the Prime Minister has no objection to Labour MPs using parliamentary resources to advocate in a local government election on behalf of a Labour ticket, just as she did with her $400,000 pledge card?

Madam SPEAKER: There is no ministerial responsibility for that matter.

Industry—Training Programmes

2. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What reports, if any, has he received on the Government’s industry training programmes?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): I am pleased to say that today I was able to congratulate in person the 2,000^th Modern Apprentice to have completed training, Mr Simon Jervis. Also, I have received an independent evaluation of the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. It shows that the scheme has had outstanding success in encouraging employers to hire and train more young people in the trades.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What reports has the Minister received of employer attitudes towards the Modern Apprenticeships scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The report I released today shows that the Modern Apprenticeships scheme is an outstanding success with employers. Ninety-five percent of employers of Modern Apprentices would recommend the programme to young staff. Ninety-four percent of employees would recommend the programme to other potential employees and employers.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that, as far as anyone can calculate it, the dropout rate for apprentices over the age of 20 in that scheme is about 70 percent; and why does he continue to refuse to release the figures that will show us the dropout rate for apprentices under the age of 20?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I agree with the member that some difficulties exist with some of the data being collected.

Hon Bill English: You don’t like the numbers!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: But of course if he jeers at that I will not give him any more of an answer.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister believe that lifting the proportion of women in Modern Apprenticeships from 7 percent to 8 percent is consistent with the requirement under section 17 of the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act to have particular regard to the employment needs of women?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think moving from 7 percent to 8 percent might be regarded as an extreme form of Fabian socialism. We hope to do considerably better over the coming period of time, particularly as we extend the Modern Apprenticeships scheme to areas with a much larger concentration of young women who are available for training.

Taxation—Business Tax Review

3. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the comment he made last December when announcing the business tax review that “we envisage some very bold measures emerging. It will not be a matter of tinkering with the tax rules”; if so, can he confirm that the measures released in the review are in fact “very bold” and not at all a matter of tinkering?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The answer is yes and yes. I said also that some may prove to be “too big and too bold for a wide variety of stakeholders, including officials”. The business tax proposals are certainly much bolder than those proposed by National last year, which merely proposed to lower the rate by 3c with no other moves.

John Key: Has the Minister seen the opinion of numerous tax experts who think the report is superficial and timid, including Mike Shaw, a senior tax partner at Deloitte, who said: “I would have thought on a scale of 1 to 10 it was probably about a 2 or 3 mark.”; in which case, is the Minister himself surprised that it took 7 months to produce such a lightweight document?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That member is the last member to talk about being lightweight on matters of this sort. I am not surprised. It is my experience that whenever we spend more money on anything or reduce tax anywhere, everybody always asks for more. The problem that that member has not understood is that one cannot give more to everybody on everything people ask for.

Shane Jones: Has the Minister seen any reports expressing disappointment that the report expressly excludes consideration of a payroll tax?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I have seen a number of reports that seem to suggest great disappointment that a payroll tax was not included. Most of those reports seem to come from Mr Key.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that the proposals aimed at incentivising research and development and exports, which are endorsed by New Zealand First, are of vital importance in improving our competitiveness with Australia, and consistent with the policy programme within the confidence and supply agreement?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I do indeed. It is significant that much of the negative comment has come from so-called tax experts who are obsessed simply with the rate, not with other ways in which the tax system can help the economy grow.

John Key: How much money does the Minister think he can allocate to the business tax review and to any subsequent changes he might make to personal taxes, or is that a minor detail he has not yet bothered to calculate?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Only time will tell, but I would note that if we aligned all personal, company, and other rates to a top rate of 25 percent, which some people seem to think should have been in the document, the annual cost would be $4.3 billion.

John Key: How can he afford any of the changes proposed in the business tax review, let alone his late-night musings last night about personal taxes, when he still cannot confirm whether the changes he announced to personal tax thresholds in Budget 2005 will go ahead, and they would cost only $360 million?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member bothered to read the Budget documentation, he would know there is a large difference between Inland Revenue Department and Treasury forecasts of revenue over the next couple of years. Secondly, if he cared to open the newspaper, he would notice that there was a certain degree of uncertainty in world affairs at the present time, which could impact on New Zealand’s economy. Thirdly, of course, my colleagues will have to show some restraint about future spending proposals, if we are to achieve anything in the taxation area. Unlike Mr Key, I do not get up and say that we can do everything that everybody wants and it is all just easy.

Shane Jones: What support has he received for the proposals?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have indeed received some support. In particular, I was very pleased to see very positive feedback—though it did not seem to be widely reported—from Mark Weldon of the New Zealand Exchange, whom Mr Key was reported as trying to get into Parliament on the National ticket. He commended the focus on productivity and investment.

John Key: Did he find his road to Damascus experience last night on Television One’s Close Up programme, when he argued the merits and affordability of tax cuts, as bizarre as the viewers did, his having spent the entire election campaign doing the complete opposite?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I did say in the election campaign was that $2.3 billion of tax cuts on 1 April this year would have had to be paid for by cuts in health, education, and superannuation. The National Government in 1999 cut taxes by a small amount and cut New Zealand superannuation to pay for it. Mr Key wants the elderly to pay for a tax cut for him.

Peter Brown: Is it not true that in the confidence and supply agreement that the Government has with both United Future and New Zealand First there is a commitment to look at levels of taxation—to some degree, at least?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed, that was a condition of the confidence and supply agreements of both New Zealand First and United Future. I worked in great partnership with the leader of United Future, the Hon Peter Dunne, on the report that we released yesterday. I repeat that it goes much further than National’s policy on corporate taxation, because it goes about three times as far, in dollar terms, as National’s policy does.

John Key: When he said last year that some of the options he was considering might prove to be “too big and too bold for a wide variety of stakeholders”, can he confirm that, sadly for him, the stakeholder who held that view turned out to be none other than his own Prime Minister; and is that not just further evidence that his days as Minister of Finance are over?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. I do wish Tony Ryall would stop waving his hand at me in that fashion—I could misinterpret it. There is no truth in that story, at all. The member has to stop making it up—lying in bed at night and not doing anything useful at all, but making up funny stories that appear to give him some pleasure.

Taxation—Business Tax Review

4. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Revenue: What are the potential revenue implications of the business tax review?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): If all the measures that the Inland Revenue Department and Treasury have been able to cost were advanced, the costs could be up to $1.7 billion per annum, of which $540 million would be the cost of the company tax rate reduction to 30 percent. The adoption of uncosted items that were contained in the package would further increase the cost to around the $2 billion figure that I released yesterday.

Gordon Copeland: Why is a business tax review happening now, when the Minister of Finance stated before the last election that any reduction in the company tax rate would be a low priority during this parliamentary term?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The major reason for the business tax review having been undertaken, and for the ongoing work around it, was that it was a high priority in the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and United Future.

Craig Foss: Was the Minister reported correctly in the Trans Tasman of February 2006 where, regarding tax reform, he stated: “There is little point in seeking quick-fix answers or in fiddling around just lowering the corporate tax rate from 33 cents to 30 cents to match the Australian rate” and that he is “thinking in terms of much deeper cuts”; if the report is correct, what has changed between the bold February report and the fiddling around of the business tax review?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I remind the member that the changes foreshadowed yesterday in their totality amount to the biggest review of business tax arrangements in this country since 1988. I regard that as bold.

Gordon Copeland: What implications could the business tax review have for personal income tax rates?

Hon PETER DUNNE: As the report yesterday indicated, any move to lower the company tax rate has an obvious implication for personal tax rates. But as the report also indicated, this is a review of business tax arrangements. Those implications will be considered at the time that decisions are made about the nature of any changes to business taxes.

Gordon Copeland: What is the next stage of the review process from here?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The document is currently the subject of public consultation and is available for submission until 8 September. In that context, I note that I wrote to Dr Brash and Mr Key before December last year to invite their participation in the review, and am still awaiting a reply. Those people who wish to make submissions can do so by either going to policy.webmaster@ird.govt.nz and marking their submission “business tax review” or writing to the deputy commissioner, policy advice division, Inland Revenue Department, PO Box 2198, Wellington, with their submissions. Decisions will then be made, probably early next year, once we know the revenue track and the forward forecasts on the matters contained in the document yesterday and any associated issues.

Overstayer—Refugee Status and Work Permit Refusal

5. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Can he confirm that Thai overstayer, Mr Sunan Siriwan, was not only declined refugee status on 19 February 2002 but was declined a work permit by the Associate Minister’s office on 21 October 2004 and again on 15 March 2005; if so, why?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): Yes, I can confirm that Mr Sunan Siriwan was declined refugee status on 19 February 2002 and was declined a work permit by the Associate Minister on 21 October 2004 and on 15 March 2005, as the Associate Minister declined to intervene in both instances.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that Mary Anne Thompson, the Department of Labour workforce deputy secretary, told the Ingram inquiry that had the application by Mr Siriwan for a work visa been made, not to the Associate Minister but to the New Zealand Immigration Service, “the application would have been unsuccessful”; if so, why would it have been unsuccessful?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I cannot confirm what was in the minds of particular officials at particular times, but I can confirm that ministerial discretion exists on the basis of statute, precisely because every case differs and Ministers are entitled to rely upon the information that is put before them.

Dianne Yates: Could the Minister please explain the basis for ministerial discretion in difficult immigration cases?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Ministerial discretion exists—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was difficult about this case?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. These are sensitive matters and I think it would assist the House if answers could be given.

Madam SPEAKER: Order, please. Everyone wishes to hear what the members have to say, both in questions and in answers.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Ministerial discretion exists because not all circumstances can be foreseen when policy is written. Members on all sides of the House accept this when they put forward representations for the exercise of ministerial discretion. For example, I note that the member for North Shore and the member for Pakuranga, by their own admission, have both made significant numbers of such representations to the Associate Minister.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What persuaded the Minister to change his mind to issue a special direction for work visas for Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm after his two meetings with Taito Phillip Field in March and May 2005 when his department was advising so strongly against it?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is my understanding, based on the information I have seen, that the then Associate Minister took into account a range of factors including the presence of a child who was a New Zealand citizen, a relative shortage in the labour market, and a number of other factors. What is important is that Mr Ingram QC concludes in paragraph 179: “I consider that the decision by Mr O’Connor may be regarded as a justifiable exercise of that broad discretionary statutory power.”

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does he still claim that the New Zealand Immigration Service, in providing the Minister with information to assist his decision on whether to issue a special direction for a work visa for Mr Siriwan on 16 June 2005, failed to mention to the Minister that it was aware Mr Siriwan was working on a house owned by Taito Phillip Field in Samoa; and if so, how does he explain that failure by his department?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Ingram report concluded that the department attempted to ensure that Mr O’Connor was in receipt of relevant information from Samoa about Mr Field’s relationship with Mr Siriwan. It also concluded that it is likely that Mr O’Connor himself received this information only after he had made his decision to intervene.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I repeat my question to the Minister: how does he explain why his department failed to pass on to the Minister the information it was in possession of, which was that Mr Siriwan was working on a house owned by Taito Phillip Field in Samoa prior to the Minister making a decision for a special direction?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mr O’Connor believed that the department would consider all new information in deciding whether to actually grant the visa. At the time, the department believed that when the Associate Minister made his 17 June decision he had received the information, and understood that it had been transmitted to his office. The inquiry accepts that the most likely scenario is that he had not received it.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Minister expect this House to believe that his department, which on multiple occasions had advised against a visa or work permit being issued for Mr Siriwan and was aware beyond doubt that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa, just failed to mention that highly relevant fact to the Minister when it briefed him prior to his decision to issue a special direction on 17 June 2005?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is not for members of this House to second-guess the findings of the inquiry. The inquiry concludes that the most likely scenario is that the Minister, as per his testimony, did not receive that information until after he had made the decision. The department also advises me that it decided in April this year that its processes for attempting to advise the Associate Minister of these matters in this case should be strengthened. Accordingly, I am advised that the Secretary of Labour has directed the department to ensure that it can in future demonstrate that decision makers have access to all relevant information.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When Mr O’Connor told the Ingram inquiry that had he known that Mr Siriwan was working for Mr Field and staying in his house in Samoa he would have “absolutely rejected” Mr Field’s advocacy for Mr Siriwan to be granted a 2-year work permit, why did the Minister, when he knew beyond doubt of those facts within 5 days of the special direction being made, not revoke it?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that Mr O’Connor believed that the new information would be taken into account in the department’s processes and that no visa would be issued.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Within 5 days.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, within 5 days. However, once he realised that this was not the case, he acted to reverse his decision. So on 19 September a warning flag was issued in the system. Mr Siriwan has never lodged a visa application and, to this day, remains outside New Zealand.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some weeks ago I raised with you the issue of Speaker’s ruling 150/1 by Mr Speaker Tapsell regarding interjections being out of order during question time. I understand that you have subsequently canvassed this matter with the Business Committee, but today’s behaviour suggests there has not been any great improvement and I now request you to enforce that Speaker’s ruling.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, and I will take time to consider the matter. It is a serious one, and I suggest that perhaps all members would also like to reacquaint themselves with that Speaker’s ruling. I thank the member for drawing it to my attention, and I will get back to the House with a ruling.

Treaty of Waitangi—Principles

6. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: What reports has he received on the different versions and interpretations contained in documents, publications, and other information campaigns that have attempted to define the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, and can he advise the House what the Government’s definition of the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” is?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Many. In 1989 the Government released five principles by which it would act when dealing with issues that arise from the Treaty of Waitangi, and I will be quite happy to table that particular document again, because no Government since that point has actually rejected or amended it. In relation to references in legislation, those, of course, are matters for the courts to interpret, but, to give greater clarity, this Government has adopted the practice of giving a greater degree of definition, of specificity, to those references in order that such interpretation does not occur simply in the abstract.

R Doug Woolerton: Is he aware that when asked what the Government’s definition of the principles was in 2002, the Prime Minister stated: “I am not aware of an official Government statement on the principles of the treaty.”; and what has changed between then and now that has enabled him to provide a definitive answer on behalf of the Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is flattering to note that I gave a definitive answer in relation to that principal question. In fact, I have references to correspondence issued by the Prime Minister where she makes reference to that 1989 statement.

R Doug Woolerton: Is he aware that in 2002, when asked to define the principles, the Prime Minister stated that the principles had “preoccupied the courts, the legal profession, Maoridom, and the Government for many years. This process is clearly an ongoing matter.”, but declined to define them, and does he not realise that this lack of definition has come at a huge cost to this country, both fiscally and socially?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That, I think, was in the context of the interpretation of legislation. That still remains a matter for the courts, and one reason it is left in that form is that the interpretation is not necessarily fixed through all time in all circumstances. Because the nature of society changes, the nature of the relevant framework changes. That is also a reason why this Government has adopted the process of giving greater clarity to any such references, so that it is not a purely abstract consideration. I seek leave to table the 1989 document.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Report

7. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Labour: Has the Department of Labour undertaken a full review of the Ingram report to determine if it should investigate whether or not Taito Phillip Field has breached New Zealand employment laws; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): I am advised that the department has studied the report and found no evidence that an employment relationship existed in this case, and therefore there was no evidence of a breach of employment law. I want to thank the member for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that New Zealand does not have any legislative protection for people who may contract not in their own best interests, that is, contract below market rates, which was the point made in the Ingram report, rather than below minimum wage. I look forward to the support of the National Party should such legislative protection be introduced to this House in the future.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Given that the Department of Labour has investigated this issue and decided it was an independent contractor relationship, will the department release its report so it is clear on what basis it came to that conclusion?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member may wish to familiarise himself with the provisions of the Official Information Act and make use of them.

Darien Fenton: What reports, if any, has the Minister received concerning entitlements under New Zealand employment law?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I have received a number of reports, some of which note suggestions that we abandon entitlements to the minimum wage, as well as minimum holiday entitlements, parental leave, and our moves to close the gender pay and employment gap. These are suggestions expressed by Dr Don Brash. I have also seen reports that Dr Mapp, who asked the primary question, wants the right to fire people with no reason in the first 90 days of getting a job. There is a rich irony in his question.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Did the Department of Labour ask Mr Field to supply copies of all invoices for the work done, including GST records, for the people who undertook the work; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I understand that those questions are outlined by the member in a letter directly to the Secretary of Labour who, I am sure, will reply in a timely fashion.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Have Department of Labour inspectors, who have the powers under the Act, already interviewed Mr Field to determine whether there truly was an independent contractor relationship, or was it just an employment relationship dressed up as such, and what records have they already sought from him?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, no information at all contained in the Ingram report raises concerns about an employment relationship. If anyone, including the member, has any evidence of an employment relationship in relation to this case or breaches of the minimum wage, I would encourage them to provide that evidence to the department.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I ask the Minister again whether any labour department inspectors interviewed Mr Field, asked for any records, or checked with all parties as to what the truth of the situation actually is, or did they simply look at the Ingram report?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I understand from the review that the department has taken, I assume that it would take the evidence as outlined in the Ingram report rather than speculation from Dr Mapp.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Is the Minister aware that Professor Hodge, one of New Zealand’s leading employment law experts, says that any employment contract made in New Zealand must comply with New Zealand law, and that means a much greater minimum rate than the $111 per week that Mr Field paid Mr Siriwan in Samoa?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I would certainly hope that Professor Hodge would acknowledge that any employment contract under New Zealand law would have to comply with New Zealand law. But I would add that I am sure if Professor Hodge was asked, he would also acknowledge that we have no legislative protection for contractual arrangements.

Minerals—Importation from Non-self-governing Territories

8. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Trade: What is the Government’s position, if any, on importing minerals from non-selfgoverning territories where these minerals have been taken without regard to the wishes and interests of the people in those territories?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade): Any company importing any product to New Zealand needs to do so in compliance with both domestic and international law, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advises that it has no evidence of any company acting contrary to this.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister not aware that the vessel Bulk Sirius is currently in port at Tauranga bearing a cargo of phosphate fertiliser from Western Sahara; if so, does he have any concerns about New Zealand companies receiving minerals from non-selfgoverning territories under military occupation, as is happening at the moment?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am aware of that fact, but I am advised that the New Zealand companies concerned are not in breach of either international or domestic law in importing phosphate from Morocco that may have been mined in Western Sahara. However, let me add that New Zealand has grave concerns about the political situation in Western Sahara and has strongly supported the UN processes and the peace plan designed to resolve the dispute between the Government of Morocco and the Sahrawi people.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with Hans Corell, legal counsel to the United Nations, that it is contrary to the principles of international law to take minerals in disregard of the interests and wishes of the people in Western Sahara; if so, what evidence can he show the House and the people of New Zealand that it is in the interests of the people of Western Sahara to have their phosphate mined by a Moroccan State-owned company—the military occupiers—then exported to New Zealand?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am aware of the opinion given by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Hans Corell, back in 2002 on the basis of the charter principle of recognising that the interests of the inhabitants of non-selfgoverning territories must be paramount. However, I am also advised that there are no legal grounds for banning the trade from Morocco. Indeed, to do so would be subject to a legal challenge from Morocco under international trade law.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I specifically asked what evidence the Minister has that it is in the interests, and is the wish, of the people of Western Sahara to have their phosphate mined. I would like an answer to that question.

Madam SPEAKER: I thought the Minister addressed it, but if he wishes to add more he may do so.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I will add further. The member asked several questions and therefore she runs the risk of not having all of them answered. The answer is that I do not think anybody can say with any certainty what the local people in Western Sahara feel about the mining of phosphate resources. I certainly have no evidence about that. I am aware that the independence movement is opposed to that, but I am not aware of what the views of the ordinary people in Western Sahara may be, and how could I be?

Metiria Turei: Given that the Minister has said that he has no evidence that the people of Western Sahara have given their consent to having their phosphate mined by the military occupier, and hence this shipment is in breach of international law where there is no evidence of that consent, will he then stop New Zealand companies from receiving minerals stolen from a people under military occupation until there is proof and evidence that they have given their consent to the extraction of those minerals?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have neither evidence that they have given their consent nor withheld their consent. But what I do know, and what I have advised the member several times now, is that the legal advice I have is that those shipments are not illegal under international law.

Keith Locke: What specifically is the New Zealand Government doing, following on from the Minister’s answer to the second supplementary question, to try to get Morocco to fulfil its promise made as far back as 1997 to allow a UN-sponsored self-determination process to take place to work out what the views of the people of Western Sahara really are on those matters and also on whether they want independence?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I regret to say that the member would have to address that question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs because it is within his portfolio area, but from general knowledge I can advise the member that New Zealand has steadfastly supported the procedures and the resolutions within the United Nations on a peace process coming to work in the Western Sahara area and people being given the chance to determine their future.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a Port of Tauranga vessels in port list, listing the Bulk Sirius, which is in port at present and is clearly from La’youn in Western Sahara.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Metiria Turei: The second document is a letter dated 29 January 2002 from Hans Corell, legal counsel to the Security Council of the UN, clearly stating that if exploration and exploitation activities are to proceed in disregard of the interests and wishes of the people of Western Sahara, they are in violation of the principles of international law applicable to mineral resource activities in non-selfgoverning territories.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Laboratory Services—Auckland Regional District Health Boards

9. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on the decision of the three Auckland regional district health boards to enter into a new contract for community laboratory services and what assurance can he give as to the future quality and continuity of those services in the region?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister of Health): I have received reports that an Australian-based company has been chosen to take over from another Australian-based company for the provision of laboratory services and its contract in Auckland. I have also received assurances from the three district health boards that laboratory services will remain of a very high standard.

Hon Tony Ryall: What specific concerns have been raised with the Minister, and what has he done to investigate these concerns?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware there has been concern around the reduction in the number of collection points. However, Auckland currently has a higher ratio of laboratory collection points than any other city in the Western World and the view is that a reduction in number from 85 to 43 will in no way affect the service, or access to the service, in the Auckland area.

Hon Tony Ryall: When there is an international shortage of pathologists and laboratory technicians, what assurance can he give that there will be no disruption to community laboratory services in the region, and what happens if the new people cannot employ enough specialists?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have had an assurance that quality and standard of service will continue, and that the terms of the contract insist that those companies deliver that service on time when it is needed. Those are the basic components of any commercial contract, which members opposite should understand.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be no deterioration or decline in community laboratory services; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware there are some concerns around cervical screening and the laboratory testing of those samples. I can assure the House that the level of service in the Auckland area will remain. We are transferring the contract from one predominantly Australian-based company to another Australian-based company and I cannot understand how that party, which advocates for privatisation in the health sector, does not want to accept the realities of an open-market competitive tender process.

Peter Brown: Can the Minister confirm that the parent company in Australia is facing criminal charges at this point in time; if so, does he believe it is good business practice to transfer from one established organisation here to a company that has no staff and a parent company that is facing criminal charges?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not aware of that charge. I am informed that the company is a credible partnership between professionals in New Zealand and an established company in Australia. I trust that the competitive tender process and the contract arrangements will secure services in the Auckland area.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Has the Minister had concerns raised with him about potential conflicts of interest in the tender process and what has he done to satisfy himself that none exist?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are aware of the claims of conflict of interest. The one board member involved stood down for 6 months previous to this process and played no part in it. The National Party should full well understand the process when there is a potential conflict of interest. We are confident that that process has been upheld.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister accept that he bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring there is no disruption to the provision of community laboratory services for the 1.3 million Aucklanders potentially affected by this change of service provider?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I think Ministers full well understand that the ultimate responsibility for a public health system lies with the Minister. We uphold that responsibility with the utmost integrity and we are sure that this contract will continue to deliver services for the Auckland region.

Te Ihi Tū Trust—Violent Offenders Programme

10. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Corrections: He aha tā te Minita whakautu ki ngā kitenga i pānuitia i te Reo Irirangi o Waatea i tēnei wiki, e kii ana, ko te rōpū Te Ihi Tū o Taranaki, arā, he rōpū e whai ana i ngā tikanga me ngā mātāpono Māori, kua eke ki te whitu tekau mā toru ō-rau tōna angitu, hei karo i te hokinga tuarua, tuatoru, tuangahuru, aha rānei mō te hunga haratū whakawarawara?

[What response will the Minister make to the findings, reported on Radio Waatea this week, that Taranaki-based Te Ihi Tū Trust, which operates under tikanga Māori principles, is achieving a 73 percent success rate in its programme to prevent violent prisoners from reoffending?]

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): I am delighted with the findings, and I am committed to furthering the success of rehabilitation programmes across the entire corrections system, as is the Associate Minister, the Hon Mita Ririnui. My department has advised me that it has confidence that the Te Ihi Tū programme is successful in reducing reoffending. There is currently an evaluation taking place to show evidence of that programme’s effectiveness.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He aha tana whakamārama mō te noho pāhikahika ā-pūtea o Te Ihi Tū, arā, ko te tekau mano taara ki ia tangata hara, engari ko te pūtea i ētahi atu whare ā-noho mō taua hunga, ko Montgomery House i Kirikiriroa ko te rua tekau mā rua mano taara kē, i Salisbury Tiriti i Ōtautahi, ko te rua tekau mano kē?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[What explanation can he give for the disproportionate allocation of funding for Te Ihi Tū Trust, at a cost of $13,000 per offender, when compared with the funding for the other two community residential centres for high-risk offenders—Montgomery House in Hamilton, at a cost of $22,000 per offender; and the Salisbury Street Foundation in Christchurch, at a cost of $23,000?]

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not familiar with the details of the contracts with those providers, but the Department of Corrections negotiates with a large number of providers to provide rehabilitation and reintegration services. If there are problems with those contracts, then I suggest those providers talk directly with—and I encourage them to do so—the department.

Hone Harawira: Kua rongo ia i ngā kōrero patipati o te Kaiwhakawā a Pateriki Toomey o te Poari Mauhere mō te taumata kua ekehia e Te Ihi Tū, he mahi kia pai te tūmanako me te pātai hoki “ he aha ngā mahi o tōna Tari kia whakatinanatia i ō rātou mahi rangatira i te mea torutoru noa iho ngā tāngata i tukuna atu ki taua kaupapa?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Is he aware of the glowing testimony from Judge Patrick Toomey of the Parole Board, who has described the very successful outcomes of Te Ihi Tū Trust as “very encouraging”, and what efforts will the department make to respond to this testimony in addressing the low referral rates to the programme?]

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I applaud some of the initiatives that are taking place for community rehabilitation and reintegration. I have stated on a number of occasions that the Department of Corrections is now focused far more on rehabilitation and reintegration. We will work with more providers to ensure that the people who go through our system do not reoffend and come back in. Those providers that can show they are successful will be supported, and we will expand those programmes.

Martin Gallagher: Has the Minister seen any reports on the success of the department’s efforts in rehabilitation and reintegration?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes. I have seen reports showing that prisoners who complete the Te Piriti programme have a reconviction rate of just 5.47 percent. I have also seen growing evidence that training for employment and education can reduce reoffending. That is why I and the department are committed to boosting employment hours from, currently, 2.9 million to 4.1 million, and lifting the number of New Zealand Qualifications Authority units attained from 4,800, currently, to 16,600.

Te Ururoa Flavell:He aha ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia me ngā iwi o Taranaki mō ngā whāinga arotau mō Te Ihi Tū, nā runga i tō rātou kore hiahia kia taea atu te hunga koeretanga, ki te kore, he aha ai?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[What consultation has been undertaken with Taranaki iwi on the eligibility criteria for Te Ihi Tū, in light of their consistent preference to preclude any offender with prior sexual offences from the programme; if there has not been any, why not?]

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware that the programme struggled to fill the places early on. The criteria for eligibility for that have been changed. I am sure the Department of Corrections is happy to have ongoing discussions with the trust to expand the programme when it shows its success—as I am sure it will do, from the current evaluation taking place.

Legal Aid—Access to Justice

11. KATE WILKINSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he have confidence that making legal aid available to an additional 435,000 New Zealanders will result in speedy and inexpensive access to justice; if so, why?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes. The Legal Services Amendment Act 2006, which comes into effect on 1 March 2007, will lead to over a million New Zealanders being eligible for legal aid. The Legal Services Agency’s preparations are well advanced and will ensure that legal aid continues to be delivered efficiently and cost effectively.

Christopher Finlayson: If the Minister is confident about that, then why has he commissioned a survey to establish the demand for legal aid after increasing eligibility by 435,000 people but before establishing that there are sufficient lawyers prepared to undertake that legal aid work?

Hon RICK BARKER: The agency has conducted surveys before: once in 2004 and once in 2005. This is just part of an ongoing programme.

Christopher Finlayson: How can the Minister justify the statement made by the Legal Services Agency in the Auckland District Law Society’s Law News of 21 July 2006 that the agency is not aware of real supply problems generally for legal aid, when in Blenheim, for example, there are only two lawyers who are prepared to take one legal aid case a fortnight; how can that be speedy and inexpensive access to justice?

Hon RICK BARKER: The agency has conducted a number of surveys, and so far the surveys have shown that the requirement for legal aid services is currently being met.

Peter Brown: Noting that the expansion of legal aid is meant to be inexpensive, is the Minister able to tell the House how much the cost of providing legal aid to Ahmed Zaoui has been thus far?

Hon RICK BARKER: I have no figures with me on that matter.

Kate Wilkinson: How can he be confident in the legal aid system, when the Marlborough Women’s Refuge and Sexual Assault Resource Centre advised: “We find it almost impossible to obtain the services of a lawyer for clients who need protection orders as a matter of urgency and have been put in the position of having to assist clients to prepare their own applications”, or is this Government not serious about preventing family violence?

Hon RICK BARKER: This Government is taking the issue of family violence much more seriously than any prior Government. This Government has put more money into every agency responsible for reducing family violence. There are more police on the beat and more people in Child, Youth and Family, and we have put more resources everywhere one can think of. That member’s question is simply out of order.

Kate Wilkinson: How can he be confident in the legal aid system, when the Blenheim women’s refuge advised that due to a shortage of lawyers doing legal aid work: “If the respondent wishes to oppose the protection order, our client then has to speak on her own behalf in court. Many of our women find that too difficult to contemplate and simply withdraw from the process.”; do those difficulties explain why there is a reduction in the number of protection orders made, despite an increase in reported family violence?

Hon RICK BARKER: That does not explain the reduction in the number of protection orders. The member has raised a matter with which I am not familiar, and I will certainly investigate it.

Christopher Finlayson: I seek leave to table issue 27 of Law News from the Auckland District Law Society, dated 21 July 2006, which refers to the Legal Services Agency survey.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Schools—Information and Communications Technology

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to ensure information and communications technology is part of the learning environment in schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Good news! Yesterday I launched the Government’s $65 million-a-year e-learning action plan. This is aimed at helping schools to make use of technology to tailor their teaching to the learning needs of students. To give just one example, yesterday we launched the “tablet” classroom at Brooklyn School. This involves students working on handheld computers, or tablets as they are called, and allows them to be directly involved in planning their learning. The e-learning plan also involves upgrading schools’ information and communications technology networks, providing laptops for teachers and access to the latest software.

Moana Mackey: What other support is the Government providing for innovation in schools through the use of information and communications technology?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Since 2000 the Labour-led Government has invested more than $300 million in information and communications technology in schools. As a result, all children now have access to information and communications technology and the learning opportunities it offers. New investments funded in this year’s Budget include $812,000 to expand videoconferencing, $4.1 million to provide high-quality digital content for teachers and students, and $700,000 to help remote schools with satellite broadband. I did Google and surf the net in search of the National Party’s policy on information and communications technology, but just as was the case with regard to National’s speech from Bill English on mainstreaming, I was unable to find it.

General Debate

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I have to say that the stench of corruption hangs heavily over this Labour Government this week. It does not involve just the honourable Taito Phillip Field. One has to ask what persuaded an Associate Minister of Immigration to make a decision to grant a special direction on work visas to Mr Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm. These are not marginal people. Mr Siriwan had been an overstayer in New Zealand for 8 years. He had been refused a permit twice. He had a wife and two children back in Thailand. His partner Ms Phanngarm had been refused refugee status four times, was an overstayer for 5 years, and was deported from New Zealand.

The Minister claims he did not know that Mr Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa at the time he made his decision on 17 June. That is not credible. On 8 June, in Samoa, Mrs Field, Taito Phillip Field’s wife, fronted up to immigration officials in Samoa. She was waving a letter that Taito Phillip Field had written, claiming that the Minister Damien O’Connor had agreed to issue special 2-year work permits to Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm, and also to direct that the 5-year ban on Ms Phanngarm’s coming back to New Zealand should be revoked. When the manager in Apia, Mr James Dalmer, saw a copy of the letter Mrs Field had been waving around, written by the honourable Taito Phillip Field, he immediately, the same day, emailed Wellington. The Immigration Service’s intelligence unit was staggered by what was contained in Taito Phillip Field’s letter, asking whether Mr Field had actually made that decision and whether he was aware of all the information they were aware of about Mr Siriwan working for Taito Phillip Field. That same day, 9 June, here in New Zealand, Mr Tavita from the Department of Labour rang the Minister’s office at 2.41 p.m. to tell the office about the fact that Mrs Field had been waving that letter around in Apia, and about what had been claimed. But the Minister claims he did not know anything about it.

What is more, just a few days before that on 27 May, a compliance officer who had actually been involved in deporting Ms Phanngarm from New Zealand emailed the Minister’s office to warn the Minister’s office about those issues. The officer phoned the Minister’s office on 31 May, after receiving even more information about what Mr Siriwan was up to at Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. That all happened well before the Minister made his decision on 7 June. It is not credible for the Minister to claim he knew nothing of this, at all.

But what makes this even more questionable, and what makes the cloud of corruption even thicker, is that a bloke called Keith Williams, who once employed Mr Siriwan illegally here in New Zealand and who went to Samoa to work with Mr Siriwan on Phillip Field’s house, told an immigration consultant that Taito Phillip Field had talked to Ministers Swain and Goff the day they visited Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. The Ministers do admit they met the tiler, Mr Siriwan. That guy, Keith Williams, refused to talk to the Ingram inquiry, so Noel Ingram, quite properly, had to ignore that evidence. But why would Mr Williams say that Taito Phillip Field had told him he had had a talk to the Minister? It was either Mr Swain or Mr O’Connor; we cannot blame people for getting Ministers muddled up, because no one knows exactly who the relevant Minister is. But he claims he talked to Mr Swain and that he had got an undertaking that after Siriwan had been out of New Zealand for about 3 months he would then be granted a work visa back in New Zealand. That was what happened!

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): All I do is invite that member to have the courage to make whatever inference he wants to make, outside of this House, and I will pull the rug out from under his feet so quickly he will not know which country he is in. I invite the member to have the courage to do that, but I know that member will not have the courage because there is no substance. It is part of a smear campaign. The member ought to be ashamed of himself, for this reason. He was a member of Parliament who went up and down the country in 1990, promising to repeal student fees and promising to resign if he did not do so.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave of the House to table the Ingram report, which makes it clear that the Hon Phil Goff did visit the Thai tiler at Mr Field’s house in Samoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that frivolous interjections—[Interruption] The member is a very experienced member. He knows that frivolous interjections or points of order designed to break up a 5-minute speech are out of order.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I just add for Gerry Brownlee that if he—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have ruled, Mr Brownlee.

Gerry Brownlee: That does not mean that it is an appropriate ruling. When is it considered to be frivolous to ask for the leave of the House?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have 5-minute speeches here. The member is experienced enough to know that he can seek that leave at the end of a 5-minute speech.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I add the invitation to Mr Brownlee that if he wants to make any implication or allegation about my character, he should make it outside the House, if he has the courage to do so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the member that to imply that someone lacks courage is a personal reflection and outside the Standing Orders. The member will desist and continue.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I was saying that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD—that is how he signs his letters—went up and down this country promising to repeal student fees. We have a photo of him signing a document at a student union that stated he would resign if he did not repeal the fees. He broke the first promise and he broke the second, so a man of that sort of integrity ought to be careful about challenging the integrity of others.

Then there is the Dr Lockwood Smith who begged a group of visiting American congressmen to provide the funding to run a political campaign against a nuclear-free New Zealand. He did not own up to it, and when the evidence was tabled in the House he still did not own up to it. Let the country make its own judgment about Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD’s integrity. It will come to the same conclusion that I have—he has none.

These National Party members are upset. They have come to the House today fresh from the public relations disaster of the National Party’s annual conference in Christchurch last weekend. We remember the saying of John Cleese: “Don’t mention the war.” Well, the saying at the National Party conference was parallel to that, but it was: “Don’t mention the leadership challenge.” It dominated the whole conference. But Dr Brash broke the rule. On Friday I heard Dr Brash say on Radio New Zealand that three or four malcontents in his caucus were undermining his leadership. That was said by the leader! He owned up to the country that three or four malcontents in the caucus were undermining his leadership. What he did not tell us was that three out of the four were the people sitting closest to him on the front Opposition bench. They all want a go.

The National Party was not taking any chances at its conference. Let us see what the media said about it. Vernon Small wrote in the Dominion Post that it was the most buttoned-down conference in the National Party’s history. He wrote that the workshops and remit sessions were closed to the media. The National Party was not prepared to have the media looking at what it was doing. This is the party that talks about openness and transparency! Even when it is in Opposition it will not let the country know what it is doing. What is more, it did not have faith in its own membership, because, as Vernon Small wrote, members were allowed scarcely any input into the conference debate from the floor.

That was capped off by Dr Brash’s speech. As soon as he had given the speech he did a runner. Normally a leader will front up to the media and answer their questions. When challenged, the spokesman for the “leader” said Dr Brash had a pressing engagement. The media made some inquiries, and do members know what the pressing engagement was? It was lunch! Is it any wonder that John Armstrong wrote in the New Zealand Herald: “it was also a massive vote of no confidence in Dr Brash’s ability to front to the media.” It was a massive vote of no confidence in the ability of the leader, who is never here for this debate, to front up and answer. It was a massive vote of no confidence in that leader. In another independent aspect of the media, the Press stated that no matter how much self-congratulation was going on, it did not change the reality.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): One issue stands out in the Ingram report, and it is this: did Mr Field tell the truth to Dr Ingram? That is the reason why the report took so long. There are always two approaches to any inquiry. If one is upfront and tells the truth, an inquiry is soon over. The other path is that of the dissembler—the liar—who obstructs, delays, changes the story, and evades the truth.

So what did Dr Ingram say about the evidence given by Mr Field? In short, did Dr Ingram believe him? Let us take the case of the Thai workers in Samoa. Mr Field denied that he met them. His wife said he did. Dr Ingram concluded, at paragraph 259, that it was not plausible that Mr Field did not meet them. He noted that, at the same time, paint was being hoarded, the house was being equipped with gear, and work was being done on the houses. Is it just coincidence that those Thai workers did not front up to the inquiry? What is Mr Field hiding? Let us take the issue of the house at 51 Church Street. It is a house that Mr Field bought from the Coles. He had work done on it. The house was rented to a Mrs Thaivichit, who allegedly painted the entire inside of the house because she was a friend. Dr Ingram found that “highly unlikely, if not an implausible proposition.” He also said his credulity was stretched further when Mr Field could produce no evidence of repaying a bond—not an invoice or a record of payment. In fact, earlier in the report Dr Ingram said the following about this particular house. He had to assess the candour of Mr Field. Mr Field was interviewed three separate times. At paragraph 293 Dr Ingram stated he had a “degree of concern” about the “unsatisfactory nature of the explanations”. On each occasion a different version was given. When the member of Parliament Mr Colin Moyle gave three different versions to a commission of inquiry, what happened to him? He had to resign, not as a Minister but as a member of Parliament. So I tell Mr Field to take that on board.

Mr Field could not even remember whether he had painted a house. This is what Dr Ingram stated: “I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” Perhaps Mr Field does so much painting he does not know where he does it, when he does it, or what he does it for. Actually, there is another reason, is there not? It is all about a cover-up—a cover-up of what really happened, a cover-up of the exploitation of cheap labour, and a cover-up of the exploitation of vulnerable people who came to Mr Field for assistance in immigration matters. We have heard from our colleague Dr Smith that there was collusion in this. The Minister of Immigration gave permits to people who had applied for and been refused refugee status not once, not twice, not even three times, but four times. Yet, miraculously, those people received work permits.

We have to ask ourselves whether the stench of corruption is surrounding this administration. It goes right to the top. The Prime Minister has participated completely in this shabby episode. She knows full well that Mr Field is not guilty just of a misjudgment. She knows full well, because she has read the report, that there is much more to this than that. She should be telling Mr Field to take the lesson of Colin Moyle and to do the honourable thing and resign from this House. That is what a former member for Mangere actually did when he gave three different versions to a commission of inquiry back in 1977.

How standards change. We are seeing a Prime Minister who will do anything to protect her power. We in the Opposition all know that she has a one-seat majority. I wonder where that one-seat majority resides. Is it with Mr Field, and is that why he is being protected?

SHANE JONES (Labour): This is a positive contribution, after a long flow of negativity. I will first say that we must remind ourselves that this is the time of te reo Māori. This is the time when we think very diligently and in a very far-sighted fashion about our heritage and our future—something we have not heard from the previous speakers.

Hon Member: What’s the Māori word for corruption?

SHANE JONES: Oh, I hear Mr Brownlee—the person who recently said that he would offer a friendlier face in relation to the Treaty and in respect of Te Ao Māori. I can just imagine, at this time of te reo Māori, that we have my whanaunga from Ngāti Porou, Parekura Horomia, standing up. He would be likely to say Porourangi is his rangatira. He would be likely to say that Tūwhakairiora is his whare. What would we hear from Mr Brownlee? No, he would say te ingoa o taku whare—the name of his whare—is the Angus Steak House. That type of kōrero has no prospect of fulfilling his vague promises. It is negative. It is not designed to drive forward an agenda that will bring the country together and provide a very forward-orientated approach, unlike our agenda.

That is why it is a great deal of pleasure to accentuate all the positive points about the business review that has been announced up and down the country in halls, schools, RSA clubs, and hotels. People are clapping and they are happy. Very positive and thoughtful things are coming forward. Exporters to the four winds are actively waiting for not only some members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee but also the Minister of Revenue and the Deputy Prime Minister to go and visit them about such ideas. But—[Interruption] In fact, I can see the Opposition members are almost lapping up every word, because it is enlightening when compared with the constant negativity, cynicism, and presentations without humour.

But I did see some humour. I looked at Te Waipounamu recently on television, and was one of the few New Zealanders to pay a wee bit of attention to the various National Party speeches that were lamely given to a very bored crowd. I watched our colleagues from the other side of the House line up, and I saw they were not unlike a group of Muppets. There were no brown Muppets. We know, although it is te reo Māori time, there were no brown Muppets. The one that was there for a very short period of time has since been dispatched and has been long since written off, at the very time that those members say that they will embrace Te Ao Māori and the Treaty. That got me thinking, of course, about who, for example, would be Miss Piggy. No, it will not be a person from South Auckland. Neither did I think that Mr Brownlee would be borrowing Dr Moodie’s dress this morning—no, no. I saw Kermit the frog.

Hon Member: Who was that?

SHANE JONES: Oh, those members have a great debate amongst themselves, because I know they cannot agree amongst themselves on who their leader should be. They are pouring bile—all of it, of course, completely unwarranted—on the Government side of the House, in an unfortunate attempt to steer our attention away from the very forward-thinking initiatives and agenda-setting ideas we have.

I have been warned, however. In fairness to Mr Brownlee, I must say that my matua Dover Samuels has told me to be very careful before I start to say negative things about the man from Te Waipounamu. Dover Samuels told me that Mr Brownlee will sing better than I could ever sing, and that I will never match him as he delivers his rendition of Meatloaf. I must confess that my matua Dover Samuels has also told me what that member will sing in relation to the aspirations of that human sedative, Dr Brash. He will add to the Elvis Presley song we saw and heard on television, because he will be offering Heartbreak Hotel to Only Fools Rush In. I can see it now.

That is the level of confusion that exists amongst those members. In the absence of any clear ideas or anything interesting in place of the falsehoods and the divisive thoughts they are spreading amongst the Māori Party and other people, they do not have the slightest intention of delivering either a bicultural, modern, progressive view, or even a multicultural view, to our people. That is why, for a long day to come, those members will be lost where they are, in Opposition. There are no contesting or contrasting ideas from them as to how we can lift either business or communities. No, there is just a trail of half-truths, negativity, and poorly conceived and boringly delivered ideas.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Pita Paraone.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot call two Government members one after the other.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have a list in front of me, which has obviously been agreed to, and I have already called the member. Under Speakers’ rulings, once a member has been called, I cannot take the call away.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I say I have no intention of giving up this call. Engari te mea tuatahi e tika ana kia tukuna atu ngā mihi o te Whare nei, nā te mea ko tēnei te wiki mō te reo Māori. Ahakoa ki a au, ko ia wiki o te tau he wā mō te reo Māori ehara mō te tahi wiki anahe. Koia nā te mea nui e hiahia ana te iwi whānui i hakarongo mai i wēnei kōrero, kia kawe. Tēnā tātou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[But firstly it is apt that acknowledgments by this House should be made in Māori, as this is the week for it. For me personally, every week is time for the Māori language, and not just 1 week. That is really the most important thing that Māoridom listening in to these debates would like to happen. Greetings to us all.]

I want to bring our debate to more serious issues. I signal to this House—to those who are here—and to those who are listening to this debate that I am prefacing a contribution that will lead off a very important discussion on a matter that will come before the House later in the day. I refer to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. I do so because I know that the National Party will not allow New Zealand First to have an extra say in the debate, so I am taking this opportunity to do so now.

This bill is not about doing away with the Treaty of Waitangi, as some people in this House would have the people of New Zealand believe. It is about the deletion of the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from legislation—words that are a later addition to many of our laws; in fact, 33 laws at the moment. There is no reference to the word “principles” in the Treaty itself. In fact, the Treaty is made up of four articles. If the legislation that contains the references to the principles of the Treaty at the moment actually referred to the articles, then my colleague would not be sponsoring such a bill.

Support for the bill will give an opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have a say in the debate on the Treaty. I hope that reason will prevail today when the bill comes before the House, and that support will be given to have it referred to a select committee. To deny that opportunity would be to deny the people of New Zealand, both Māori and Pākehā, the opportunity to debate the pros and cons of a very important bill.

I know that a party in this House will probably seek leave to present its own version of this bill, and I signal to the members of that party that they should make their own luck, put a bill in the ballot box, and hope that it is drawn.

I say to those people who want to deny the New Zealand public the opportunity to have a say in this matter that they should reconsider, and also take on board the point that the principles of the Treaty were never asked for by the people of New Zealand. They were imposed by a particular Government and a particular member of that Government, in order for him to say that it was his contribution to legislation.

I say to this House that it is the responsibility of Parliament and of those of us who are members of this House to make the law. It is not the responsibility of the courts or the lawyers of this land to make the law; it is their job to understand it. In order that they may understand it, the House needs to be certain that the laws it makes are clear. Adding the word “principles” without any definition of it certainly does not make the law clear.

A lot of people are rather scared of this bill. They believe that if it goes any further, the intention will be to remove reference to the Treaty itself from all legislation. That could not be further from the truth. If these principles are so important, I ask members why reference to them is not included in the Education Act.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Good question!

PITA PARAONE: It is a good question. Do I have a good answer? No.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei te pēhea koutou e hoa mā. Kia ora Te Reo Māori.

It is Māori Language Week, and I offer that support at the beginning of my speech.

Is it not an irony that on the very day the Government has decided to do away with the principles of good, open, honest Government it has decided also to do away with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I am not sure those things are connected, but when we look at the motives of these people we cannot be sure they are not. My friend Mr Jones criticised the National Party for having no “brown Muppets” on the front bench. Well, when one has a Brownlee one does not need a “brown Muppet”.

I would love to spend my time talking about the failure of the Labour Government to meet the expectations of the Māori community, but I want to turn to the ruling given to the House today by the Speaker in the case of the honourable Taito Phillip Field. It seems to me that the Government is working on the principle that there is no corruption if there is no corruption—so let us not deal with the issues of Phillip Field and his avaricious ways; let us simply get rid of corruption as an offence for parliamentarians. The Speaker has ruled today that as long as an MP does not engage on behalf of someone else in the House, at a select committee, through the question process, or through an inquiry process in the House, then the way is open to take whatever fee for service the member deems appropriate. Shane Jones, for example, could send a bill to the Angus Steak House for the promotion he gave it in the House this afternoon. He laughs, but we know he is a merciless double-dipper, and I expect that the invoice is on its way.

I ask members to think about the number of times MPs advocate for a business activity, a social enterprise, or any of a range of activities in the New Zealand community that involve interaction with the Government. The Speaker has said that it is OK to hang out a shingle and put a scale of fees on it. That really indicates that the Government knows that Phillip Field was up to no good in his activities in his electorate office. Phillip Field was holding his hand out as often as he could to get pecuniary gain. So I want to know what the Government will do when it finds out that other MPs are acting in the same way. That will not happen, because the overwhelming majority of members of this House conduct their business with the utmost honesty and integrity. I think it is an utter disgrace that the Speaker has not moved to allow Parliament to protect its own integrity. If my comments here are offensive and cause me to be sent to the Privileges Committee for raising the issue against the Speaker, then I welcome that. I welcome it because this House cannot turn a blind eye to the issues left unresolved in the Ingram report.

It is abundantly clear that Mr Field accepted lafo on numerous occasions.

John Key: What’s that?

GERRY BROWNLEE: Lafo is a payment made by someone as a thank you. The report says it was not uncommon for $10 and $20 notes to be left at the electorate office for Mr Field. One of these lafo was $500.

Hon Paul Swain: It’s culture.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Swain, one of the Ministers who went on the “Field trip” to Samoa—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Did he?

GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, he went on Phillip Field’s field trip. He went out to the house, saw the tiler, shook his hand, and asked him how he was going. He said that if the tiler made a nice job of the house and Phillip wrote a nice letter he would give the tiler a work permit for New Zealand. And the tiler knew it would happen, because Mr Goff—the then Minister of Foreign Affairs—was there. We all know what a friendly chap he is. He said the same. This is a cover-up of corruption of the worst kind.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): Here we are again, with the National Party mired in speculation about not whether it will change its leader but when. [Interruption] Cries of disdain are coming from the Opposition. But these are not my views. The Dominion Post cartoon by Tom Scott on 22 July features a very attractive John Key. Tom Scott obviously likes him more than he likes Bill English, who is not drawn quite so nicely. It shows Dr Brash walking off into the wilderness and the two struggling pretenders to the throne fighting each other. We have the ruthless John Key with his arm around Bill English’s neck. The caption has Bill English saying: “Let me stab Don in the back, John and I’ll make you my deputy …”. But John says: “Sorry Bill, I don’t trust you. I’ll stab Don and you can be my deputy …”.

Members should listen to this. While National is mired in endless disputes about when it will replace its leader, the Government is setting the agenda. This week the Government has announced the most significant reform of business tax policies in a long, long time. The highlights include proposals to drop the corporate tax rate from 33 percent to 30 percent, which would match the Australian corporate tax rate and improve the competitiveness of New Zealand business. We want to grow the cake, not squabble about how that cake should be cut up. We want to grow it. We are doing that with support from our confidence and supply partners New Zealand First and United Future. They agree that reducing the rate of company taxation to the Australian rate of 30 percent is good for New Zealand business. They know, as we do, that New Zealand businesses already have a number of advantages over Australian businesses. For example, we do not have a number of their taxes. We do not have stamp duties, a general capital gains tax, or payroll tax, as Australia does.

Our tax rates for waged workers are lower than those in Australia for people on average earnings. In fact, New Zealand’s income tax rates for a couple with two children and on the average wage are the fifth-lowest in the OECD. For a single person without children and on average earnings our income tax rates are the third-lowest in the world—three places below Australia’s already. In addition to a proposal to reduce the company tax rate to 30 percent per annum, which would come at a cost of approximately $540 million in forgone tax revenue each year, the Government is also targeting some things it wants to promote to encourage businesses to grow and to spend more on research and development, and to give them tax advantages for export market development expenditure.Those measures could cost up to $350 million or more. We are also reviewing depreciation rates—they may change. We are also changing the way in which businesses can write off their assets, rather than having to carry them forward and depreciate them.

This a Government with vision. We are transforming New Zealand’s economy. While the National Party is mired in controversy about not whether but when it will replace its leader, we are getting on and improving New Zealand’s economy by growing the cake so that we all have a bigger slice of it. In relation to other things we have already done, let us not forgot that $1 billion worth of measures were incorporated in last year’s Budget to the benefit of the business sector, including increasing depreciation rates, changing provisional tax dates, and reducing fringe benefit tax rates. We have increased research and development investment already by 65 percent since 1999, and we are increasing that investment by a further $100 million over the next 4 years. That is in addition to the stimulation that will be caused to research and development through the tax credits proposed in this business review.

These are very important changes that will stimulate the business sector and help transform New Zealand’s economy.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): I want to join with my fellow members of the National Party who have stood today to express their concern about the Government’s atrocious handling of the Taito Phillip Field allegations, and about the considerable stench of corruption that now hangs over this Government. It is a Government that has been prepared to ignore the very clear facts of this case: that a Minister used his position not only to get an advantage for himself and his family but in a way that was a clear breach of the rules of ministerial conflict of interest. Similarly, it is, in many ways, a corrupt practice to be seeking to benefit directly in return for favours.

I draw the House’s attention to a number of emails that suggest the previous Associate Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor, knows a lot more than he is letting on. Those issues go very close to that Minister, and they go extremely close to his office. I want the House to note these comments from the Ingram report. The report states that O’Connor told him “that he did not know of allegations that Mr Field had Thai people living in, and working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa at the time he made that decision.” We have to test what information is around that remark to indicate that there might be something alternative.

We know from Ingram’s own report that the public servant Mr Dalmer—someone who has no reason to be forgetful or frugal with the truth—said he telephoned the senior private secretary of the Minister, a Ms Scotland, and discussed with her the contents of a number of pieces of information that had been sent to the intelligence unit. Mr Tavita’s telephone records were given to the inquiry, and they revealed there had been a 5-minute telephone discussion on Ms Scotland’s direct dial number on 9 June. Ms Scotland said she did not recall being told the information in a 5-minute telephone conversation. Further, we know that even though Ms Scotland, the Minister’s private secretary, said she believed she first became aware of the allegations during a phone call from Murray Gardiner, it is clear that she said that after discussion with Mr Gardiner she “went straight into Mr O’Connor’s office and advised him of the details of the conversation. He expressed concern and was not aware of this information …”. But Ms Scotland remains confused about when she had that conversation.

Here, I think, is a very important piece of information that goes to the heart of who is motivated to tell the truth in this case. This is what the public servant Dalmer said: “Mr Dalmer spoke with Ms Scotland on 28 June 2005, being 27 June 2005 in Samoa.” Members should remember that this is a public servant who took notes of his conversation with the Minister’s closest political aide. His notes of this conversation state: “Knowledge of Thai cases—knows that Taito has had these people working for him—Damian [sic] knew that before he made the decision—tight labour market has been a factor …”. That is what Dalmer noted after his conversation. They are notes of what the Minister’s closest political aide is reported to have said: “Knowledge of Thai cases—knows that Taito has had these people working for him—Damian [sic] knew that before he made the decision—tight labour market has been a factor …”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please use members’ full names.

Hon TONY RYALL: I am quoting, Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Dalmer said he had “no independent recollection of the conversation other than what he had recorded in his file note.”

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): Following on from that member, the Hon Tony Ryall, I remind him that I have a very good memory and I remember the names of all of the people who made representations to me. This Government listens to business. When we talk business, we do not exclude the people who work for the owners of business and we do not say the issues are the same at both ends of town. We know that most of our businesses are small, and we need to help them grow. We do not talk down to businesses like the National Party does—that is, if it deigns to talk to them at all.

Where are the speeches from the Opposition spokesperson on small business and the Opposition spokesperson on commerce? There has hardly been a word from them since the election last year. It is no wonder the National Party wants to sell its women MPs—they are not doing their job; that is why it wants to sell them. Business people are sick to death of the Opposition MPs, whose personal attacks masquerade as political debate. One message that business people have asked me to bring to this Parliament is for those who are not prepared to debate the issues but want only to debate the personalities, and it is that they should pull their heads in. Not one of the business people I have met out on the road commented on any of the contributions made by the Opposition spokespeople to the debate on the very business-friendly environment this Government introduced while loosening the shackles of the Employment Contracts Act to enable New Zealand workers to start to catch up on conditions that other countries take for granted, like paid parental leave and 4 weeks’ annual leave.

The National Party has no policy. I listened to John Key speak to the Canterbury Manufacturers Association. He was asked what National’s policy was. He said: “I can’t tell you that yet. We’re a long way away from an election.” So at least National members now know we will go full term. But what he did say was: “You can trust me, because I care.” This is a money market dealer saying he cares! The only difference between a gambler and a money market trader is that a gambler is a money market trader who has lost his or her edge. Now we know why John Key has come to Parliament.

The National Party cannot stand the reality that we have a Minister of Finance who runs a tight ship so that this generation and future generations can benefit from his stewardship of the economy. National, on the other hand, was willing to steal from the future in order to win a general election. I say shame on the National Party. Dr Cullen ranks as one of the best Ministers of Finance New Zealand has ever had. That is the same status accorded to our Prime Minister: one of the best. And that is just what National Party supporters say about them. Our people—Labour people—say they are definitely the best.

The Opposition cannot stand the fact that our leadership is so confident and so good. Its president told people at its conference to follow the leader. What did they say? They asked: “Which way did he go?”, and that is what they are still asking. They are asking not just which way he went but who it should be. That is why they chose Elvis Presley. He is shaken and he is rattled, but when will he be rolled? That is the question the National Party conference has challenged us to ask.

On the business side of the House, Michael Cullen and Peter Dunne released a business tax review yesterday that has already caused those people who said it was only the headline rate that mattered to think again. They have been confronted with a document that lays out choices. The word I am already hearing back from the business sector is “investment”. Investment is what matters if we are to transform the economy—investment in new technology, in research and development, in innovative staff training, and in developing our export markets. It is a further building block, because we are not starting from a zero base; we are building on what we have delivered already.

There were over $1 billion of changes last year in the Budget, including increasing depreciation rates and reducing fringe benefit tax. I think one of the points that keeps getting overlooked is how much research and development has grown in this country since we have been in Government. Today 65 percent more research and development is happening in New Zealand than was happening under a National Government.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): On 17 January 1997 a Mr Siriwan slipped into this country as a visitor. He arrived as a visitor and was meant to leave New Zealand 1 week later on 24 January 1997. That illegal immigrant has hidden from authorities until quite recently, and during that time he has been aided and abetted by one former Minister of the Crown and one current member of Parliament. The result of the recent inquiry by Mr Noel Ingram QC—which cost taxpayers $500,000—leaves more questions unanswered than it possibly attempts to answer.

The question I want this House to answer honestly is whether Taito Phillip Field benefited from the services of Mr Siriwan. This is a very simple question. I have no doubt in my mind that he benefited considerably from the services of that man—and nor did Noel Ingram have any doubt, which is more important. Anybody who has bothered to read the report—[Interruption]—and Jill Pettis will not have read the report because there are no pictures in it—knows that Noel Ingram continually stated throughout that he doubted the evidence he was receiving not only from Mr Field but from Mrs Field.

This is a very serious matter of alleged corruption. In question time today, I watched as Labour members—one and all—hung their heads in shame and attempted to dodge the real questions that were put by Opposition members of Parliament.

I will take time to comment on the most incredible Speaker’s ruling that I have ever heard delivered in my time in Parliament—and if this get me before the Privileges Committee, so be it. Standing Order 400 states: “Without limiting the generality of Standing Order 399, the House may treat as a contempt any of the following:”, and paragraph (j) states: “as a member, accepting fees for professional services rendered by the member in connection with proceedings in the House or at a committee:” It seems to me that the Hon Margaret Wilson said today that if I were to come into this House and raise a question on the floor of the House or at a select committee, and in return for raising that question collect a service fee of, say, $1,000, then I may well be guilty of contempt. But if in my electorate office someone were to approach me and ask me to make a call—perhaps to the Canterbury District Health Board—to see whether I could get that person moved up the waiting list for an urgent operation, and if that person were to offer me $1,000, then, as I interpret the ruling given today, I could accept that money and not be found in contempt of Parliament. I think that is just outrageous! Members on this side of the House would not dare to consider accepting service fees for work done in a constituency office. But did Taito Phillip Field do that? In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that he did.

I want to refer to various parts of the report of Noel Ingram QC. Members have only to look at any part of the report to acknowledge that Mr Siriwan certainly made a trip to Samoa to prepare what is obviously a lovely beachfront house in preparation for Mr Taito Field’s retirement. Mr Siriwan was there for a long period of time doing some tiling work which, according to Mr Ingram, he subsequently priced at about $14,000. That raises the question of why Mr Siriwan would do that work for Mr Field unless he was expecting something in return. This report is absolutely riddled with questions that require answering.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): An issue of concern to New Zealanders right through the country is the difficulty and the expense of paying for local government. We are seeing exorbitant rates demands from local bodies throughout New Zealand. Despite the concern of local body politicians at the last election, Auckland residential rates will rise by 13.8 percent, on average. In the last 3 years Wellington City Council’s rates have increased by 20.5 percent, Christchurch City Council’s by 19.4 percent, and Hamilton City Council’s by 15.2 percent.

I ask members to think about how people on fixed incomes—particularly the elderly—are supposed to cope with those outrageous increases. Indeed, just last week I was contacted by a pensioner whose rates bill for a house he bought in 1960 is now $2,800. When he remonstrated with his local council about how he was to cope, they told him not to worry and to just sell his house. The man had lived in this house for 48 years. It is his house. The Sheriff of Nottingham would surely blush if, having extorted money out of the poor peasants at that rate, he then told them to sell their houses when they said they could no longer pay. The Sheriff of Nottingham would not do that.

Helen Clark shows no interest in this issue, whatsoever. By the way—this is public information—the rates bill on her house is $1,600. I ask members to consider that the New Zealand Prime Minister’s rates are $1,600, and a poor pensioner on a fixed income—a very, very low income—has rates of $2,800. What is fair and equitable about that? I say to the House that it is this Parliament that gives local councils the authority and the power to strike those rates. So it is our responsibility—

Jill Pettis: Does the member support the rates rebate policy?

RODNEY HIDE: There is old squeak. Old squeak is back in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that members of Parliament must be addressed by their correct names.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mrs Pettis is not speaking from her usual seat. Members should interject from their usual place. So she could go back to her position and interject from there.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am ruling on the matter. The member knows that that is in the Speakers’ Rulings. I realise she is probably acting as whip at the moment.

RODNEY HIDE: Not to worry—she could be all the way down at Te Papa and it would still be offensive and jarring to one’s ears. That member has a horrible, horrible squeak—and God knows, I can see why she lost her seat in Wanganui.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I thought you said you were going to behave nicely when you came back from your dancing.

RODNEY HIDE: I am being very nice. I just wish Labour would behave nicely and set some standards for a change, for this country. So I say to the House that it is Parliament that gives local government the power to strike rates, and therefore it is Parliament that has to take responsibility. We cannot duck the issue.

I am sorry to say that as I do the numbers I understand that it will be New Zealand First that will be responsible for the fact that the high rates bill that pensioners in particular will be confronted with will not get debated and discussed properly in this House. New Zealand First, despite its promises to the people of New Zealand, will be voting against my Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill, because it has a sweetheart deal with Helen Clark.

I have given up on the Labour Party. It does not care about the working people. It does not care about pensioners. It does not care about ratepayers. Day in and day out we see that Labour cares only about its power. It cares only about its titles. It cares only about its perks. It cares only about what it can rip off the most disadvantaged people who come to these shores. That is what we have come to expect from Labour. But even I am shocked by New Zealand First, because I thought it had a concern about rates and would want to debate the issue in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But, no, it sold out for the baubles of office. That is what New Zealand First has done.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka): What a disappointing contribution that was from the leader of ACT. I thought I heard him say, when he was off around the country dancing with the stars, that he would be kinder and gentler. I think those were the words he said. I thought he said he had had a bit of a change of heart, having gone out and mixed with some real people. What a shame we heard about that. There is an old expression about the pot calling the kettle black. Mr Hide is always going on about people who use taxpayers’ money for purposes different from those it is supposed to be used for. Well, I wonder who paid the air fares while Mr Hide was running up and down the country dancing with the stars. I wonder whether Mr Hide would tell Parliament who paid for that. When Mr Hide was having days away dancing with the stars, I wonder who paid for that. I bet it was the taxpayer. That is an example of the old saying of the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course, the National Party should also listen to that old saying. It has been going on about deals done and services rendered that are not declared. I remember the Exclusive Brethren at the last election rendering services to the National Party, but did the National Party declare these services? No, it did not. In fact, through most of the election campaign National members denied the services even existed. Finally, they said they did remember them—that they did know about them. Lo and behold, when we look at the returns, we do not see “Exclusive Brethren, services rendered” on National’s election returns. Oh, no! So I think the old expression about the pot calling the kettle black is something that both ACT and National members in this House should remember.

One of the big things about a democracy such as we have in New Zealand is that it needs a very strong, healthy Opposition. Unfortunately, New Zealand has the National Party in Opposition. An Opposition always needs a strong leader. Unfortunately, Don Brash is the current leader of the National Party. I wonder how many National Party members actually believe that Don Brash will lead them into the next election. I wonder how many of them genuinely believe it. I think most of them do not, and the few that do simply are not listening to what the rest of New Zealand is saying. There was a time when the National Party was a strong party—a party of principle, philosophy, and policy—and had strong leaders, such as Rob Muldoon, Keith Holyoake, and Jim Bolger. They were strong leaders. I did not agree with virtually anything any of them ever said, but they were strong leaders and commanded respect in New Zealand. What about Don Brash? Can members pick out the odd member from this lot: Rob Muldoon, Keith Holyoake, Jim Bolger, Don Brash? Well, one would have to say it was Don Brash. The point is that he will not be the leader of the National Party as it goes into the next election. There is no question about that.

Last week the National Party had its showcase—its national conference—at which its leader was supposed to outline leadership and policy. Instead, we got a whole pile of waffle from him. He did not give out one new policy thought or idea. He said he was planning to be the next Prime Minister, leading a National Government—end of story. I wonder how many leaders who are actually leaders have to say that. Can members hear Richie McCaw saying that? Richie McCaw would never say: “Look at me, look at me—I’m the real leader. Don’t worry, I’m the real leader—end of story.” Would we ever hear Helen Clark saying that? Of course we would not. The reason we would not hear Richie McCaw and Helen Clark saying that is that they are real leaders. They do not have to go around telling everybody that they are leaders and that they will be leaders for the next couple of years. They do not have to do that, because everybody assumes their leadership.

Then, right at the end of National’s conference, the leader had to dash away to attend an important engagement and could not front up to the media. He failed in the single biggest thing. He is not a leader. The National Party is hopeless and will not lead the Government after the next election, or for a very, very long time after.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill

Third Reading

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) on behalf of Anne Tolley (National—East Coast): I move, That the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill be now read a third time. I would like to extend the good wishes of Anne Tolley, who is unable to be with us at the moment. She deeply regrets that, because she has championed this bill to its third reading in the House today.

This bill validates the uses of Alfred Cox Park, which is a centrally located park in the city of Gisborne and which was gifted to the borough of Gisborne in 1944 under a deed of trust. The uses are currently contrary to the Reserves Act 1977. Every Saturday morning a flea market is held in the grounds, and an excellent i-site has been built, at considerable expense, as part of the Gisborne Visitor Information Centre, which is an important part of Gisborne’s tourism. Gisborne has thriving tourism, and is a wonderful place to visit and spend any amount of time in. I always value greatly my opportunity to visit Gisborne. It is in some of the accommodation it offers there that I have had some of my best nights’ sleep.

I would like to mention a few things that have happened during the process of this bill. The Māori Party raised the issue of the local iwi, Rongowhakaata, who had not been consulted. Despite many rounds of public consultation in Gisborne prior to the bill coming to Parliament and the select committee seeking public submissions from Gisborne residents, nothing was actually heard from the iwi. However, the council has had discussions with iwi and has reached agreement, which is an excellent outcome, as part of the process of consultation. So all due credit to both the council and the iwi for coming to that conclusion.

Alfred Cox Park was classified as a recreation reserve in 1985, but in 1966 the council had allowed the public relations office to be replaced by the visitor information centre, which I mentioned earlier. Prior to 1990 part of the land was also being used for the flea market, and both of these uses, according to legal opinions obtained by the council and scrutinised by Parliamentary Counsel, are contrary to the Reserves Act 1977. So the Gisborne District Council is promoting this local bill, which was accepted by the Clerk of the House in June 2005, after several false starts. The member Anne Tolley is absolutely delighted that it has come to fruition and that we are at this point today. Janet Mackey MP promoted the bill originally, and, as a newly elected electorate MP, Anne Tolley is delighted to continue its progress through the House on behalf of the Gisborne District Council.

Anne thanks the Local Government and Environment Committee for the time and effort put into the scrutiny of the bill, as well as the officials, who came up with some good solutions to some of the legal problems that were raised during the select committee process. So sincere thanks to all of those people who were involved.

The committee received several submissions on the bill. The submissions from the council outlined the history of the park and the activities that have taken place. It referred to the establishment of the public relations office, and its subsequent replacement with the visitor information centre. The council had consulted with the two current users of the reserve and also with members of the family of Alfred Cox. Two differing legal opinions were obtained, and the solicitors for Tourism Eastland, which operates the visitor information centre, felt that the centre actually met the description in the deed of trust, which refers to buildings for the entertainment, convenience, or amusement of the public, or other buildings of a civic nature. It is good to be able to support some of the future visions of the area, of the council, and of Tourism Eastland, and to have these legal matters settled so that they can move on into the future with some confidence.

The council outlined in its submission the considerable efforts it had made, quite unsuccessfully, to relocate the flea market and referred to the petition to the council from 72 signatories who supported the continued existence of the flea market. That was followed by a petition from the local people in the neighbourhood who were concerned about the undesirable effects of a flea market. However, anybody who attends the flea market knows that it is extremely well attended and that many, many Gisborne citizens go there on a regular basis to purchase fruit and vegetables.

There were a number of other submissions, including one from a Dr Helen Pāpuni, who supported the intent of the bill and supported the use of the land by the flea market as a tourist attraction. We all know that when one visits any area in New Zealand the flea markets are a particular highlight for many visitors and locals alike. They are a wonderful source of some great produce and showcase some of the excellent wares that the locals have to offer. I think the flea markets are a wonderful opportunity to have that experience, and I know that many visitors and locals do appreciate that opportunity.

The select committee made a couple of changes to the bill on advice from officials. The reasoning was that in order to validate the use of the park by the visitor information centre, as well as the flea market, the bill needed to apply to the Reserves Act in general and in whole, not just, as the council had suggested, to the specific part that related just to the flea market. In fact, the Department of Internal Affairs had suggested that it was unclear whether the bill, as drafted originally, would actually validate the presence of the visitor information centre. In addition, the officials suggested a change to clause 5 to allow validated users to flow through to the provisions dealing with leases and licences in the future. That is a really positive way of making sure that the council, Tourism Eastland, and the community can actually plan for the future in regard to this area. I think that is a very, very positive outcome for everybody involved.

The Gisborne District Council representatives did not agree with those suggestions of the parliamentary officials. They did say that in their opinion the fundamental objective of the amending legislation was to validate use, not to provide a designation, and they felt that the officials were focusing on the designation of the reserve and that they failed to appreciate the action in 1998 of redesignating a part of the reserve as a local purpose reserve. However, it did become very complicated. The important thing, though, is that the select committee has followed the advice of the officials. The Gisborne District Council did feel that, overall, it wanted the bill to proceed in order to put the validation process in place and to put an end to what has been a rather lengthy process through the House.

National is happy to support this bill and delighted to see that our member Anne Tolley has served her community so well. We applaud her for all the efforts that she has made to support her council, Tourism Eastland, and the community of Gisborne.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to speak on the third reading of this local bill in regard to Alfred Cox Park and the Gisborne District Council’s intentions to make legal the activities that occur there.

I have to say that I am a little bit disappointed with the speech from Sandra Goudie, because, up until this point, the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill has been a non-political bill. The bill was introduced by Janet Mackey. It was one of the first issues that was brought to her in 1993 when she was a newly elected member of Parliament for Gisborne. She worked with the council on the bill, and worked very hard on it. As we know, it was up to the district council to draft the bill and bring it to the House, but she worked with the council very, very carefully in order to get this bill ready. Unfortunately, when the bill finally did come to the House the rules had changed, and the Clerk’s Office had to send it back to be redrafted. But the fact is that she introduced the bill, she made the first reading speech, and she did all the work to bring the bill to the House. To have to sit here and hear this matter being politicised at the third reading, when all members who live in Gisborne and its surrounds have been working very well together on it, and to hear the National Party members now claiming that somehow it was all them, is really disappointing, because that is not the way we do it in Gisborne. If that is the way National wants to play it, that is fine, but I have to register to this House my disappointment at the manner in which Sandra Goudie gave that speech, trying to imply that the former member Janet Mackey did not really do much when it came to it. In fact, she did most of the work.

I thank Anne Tolley for bringing this bill to the House, and I am sorry that she was not able to come here and speak on it today as she has done on other stages of the bill, but such is life.

This is an important bill for Gisborne. Alfred Cox Park, for anyone who knows Gisborne, really is the hub of life in Gisborne. Anyone who knows the flea markets knows that that is where all the action happens every Saturday morning. I have been a regular attendee of flea markets over the course of my life, particularly with Labour Party stalls selling toffee apples and fruit and veges—one does one’s bit.

It is also where the intercity bus depot is. When I had to leave Gisborne to go to university, seven or eight times a year I would get on and off the bus at Alfred Cox Park, not realising, of course, that I was committing an offence by engaging in a commercial transaction whilst I was there. Also, I commented in one of my speeches that I was very pleased that Ron Mark’s bill to reduce the age of criminal liability was not in place at that time, because all the times as a child I had gone to play mini-putt at Alfred Cox Park I could have been considered a serious recidivist offender for continually breaking the law by engaging in a commercial transaction at the park.

On top of that, I have no regrets about it whatsoever. Most people in Gisborne would never have realised that many of the activities carried out in Alfred Cox Park were not able to be carried out under the Reserves Act 1977, and this bill clarifies that issue.

I want to address the issue of Rongowhakaata and the fact that they felt they had not been adequately consulted. It surprised me that they felt that the council had not consulted them, because I have to say that the Gisborne District Council is usually pretty good at consulting local iwi on these matters. I have met with Rongowhakaata and they have assured me that they do not oppose anything in the bill.

I would have liked the bill to go through the House a bit more speedily than it has, but it is fair enough that Rongowhakaata raised concerns and that those concerns were raised on their behalf in the Chamber. I wish they had come to me first. I wish they had come to me when the bill was going through a select committee, so that their concerns could have been addressed then. I felt that doing it after the fact was perhaps not quite as useful as it could have been if it had been done earlier.

I commend the bill to the House. It is nice to see that the bill is finally nearing completion, and that many of the activities of the people of Gisborne, Tourism Eastland, the information centre, the intercity bus depot, and, most important, minigolf will now be able to be carried out unfettered, without the people of Gisborne being in fear of breaching any laws.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Before I call Te Ururoa Flavell I advise members that the member will speak his whole speech in Māori, then the interpreter will interpret the whole speech.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. ā, tēnā tātou katoa me koutou hoki i te kāinga e whakarongo mai nei. He taonga tuku iho, ko te manu tukutuku. Kua ngaro atu kē ki ngā hau e whā. Kua whakamīharo ō tātou nei ngākau. Kia patu ake ki te whai ao, ki te ao marama. Anei kē pea te whakamārama o tēnei kōrero. He taonga ka ngaro i te hau; kia kitea mai kātahi ka puta ko te harikoa. Ki te āta titirohia ngā whakapapa me ngā kōrero ō nehe o Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa, kātahi ka mārama tātou ki te tikanga o te manu tukutuku me tōna rere ki taua iwi. Waihoki, e ai ki tēnei pire, he rongonui a Rongowhakaata mo te whakarere manu tukutuku. Koia nei anō hoki ko te mahi o Te Tōrangapū Māori he whakaara ake i te take nei, arā, kia kōrerorero, kia wānanga ki te taha o te mana whenua o Rongowhakaata. Ko tā matou, ko te whakarere i te take nei o te tika me te pono me te wāhanga o te tangata whenua i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa.

E te Kaikōrero, e tino tika ana kia tae mai te pire nei ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare i tēnei rangi tonu nei i a tātou e āta titiro ana ki te wāhanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi hei korowai mō ngā ture o te motu. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki te take i kōkirihia e te Kaunihera Māori o Aotearoa ki te Kooti Pīra. Ko tā rātou, ko te noho ā-Tiriti he rite ki te noho rangapū, arā; he wāhanga ki a koe, he wāhanga ki a au. Ko te noho rangapū i waenganui i a Pākehā me Māori e akiaki nei i a rāua tahi kia tika te noho, kia pono te noho ōrite.

He aha tēnei tū momo rangapū ki te noho wahangū tētahi taha? Nā Rongowhakaata te papa o Alfred Cox i tuku i runga i te tikanga o Te Ture Whenua Rāhui 1977 “hei painga mō te katoa”. Kāti. He aha tōna hokinga mai? He whakahāwea, he whakaiti. Ko te whenua kei te pūtake o te pire nei he whenua muru i a Rongowhakaata i raro i Te Pire Mahi Tūmatanui.

Kei roto i te pire nei, ko ngā mātāpono whakahirahira o Te Tiriti o Waitangi nā te Pāti Māori tonu i whakairi hei mea wānanga mā tēnei Pāremata. I te pānuitanga tuatahi me te mea tuarua o tēnei pire, i whakatakoto mātou i ngā whāinga matua nā te Tiriti i whakatau ki runga i tēnā, i tēnā. Kua kōrerohia e tātou tēnei mea te Kāwanatanga me kī, ko te wāhanga ki te Karauna, ko te hanga ture, me te tango whenua hei painga mō te katoa o te hapori, me tōna whanaungatanga ki te rangatiratanga o te ao Māori ki runga i ōna whenua.

Ko tā te Karauna oati ki te tangata whenua ka pūmau tōna tino rangatiratanga ki runga i ōna whenua. Engari tēnei, i noho pōhēhē te Karauna he whenua noho kau tēnei, ā, kāore he raruraru ki te tuku hei whenua parapara mā te tāone.

Kei te kōkiri anōtia e mātou tēnei take kia noho tapu ngā kōrero a te Kāwanatanga. Tino kore mātou e rata ki ngā tīwaha a ngā mema pērā i a Moana Mackey, me Anne Tolley. He kōrero ēnei kua puta, ano nei, kāore he whakaaro mō ngā tāngata e pāngia ana e tēnei pire.

Ehara mō te Tōrangapū Māori tēnei pire. I tū mātou i runga i te tika ki te whakaatu i ngā whakaaro o tō mātou hapori. Kei te pūmau mātou ki te whakaaro me whawhai mō ngā tika a Māori, me kōkiri hoki i ngā take Māori hei painga mō te whenua katoa. Mō Te Tiriti o Waitangi tēnei, kia whai oranga ai ia hei kawenata, hei kaupapa mō tō tātou kirimana hapori. He kirimana e taea ai e ngā iwi katoa te noho tahi, te whakaatu i ō rātou whakaaro hei whakaputa hoki i ō rātou āwangawanga.

Tae noa ki te pānuitanga tuarua, kāore i tutuki taua kirimana hapori. Kāore he hiahia ki te hui ki ngā māngai o Rongowhakaata me ngā iwi o Turanga-nui-a-Kiwa kōrero ai mō ngā āhuatanga o te pire. Koirā tā mātou i hiahia ai, ko te kōrero.

I hara mai mātou ki tēnei Whare ki te pātai i te pātai; he ōrite te mana o ngā hoa Tiriti? Āe rānei, kāore rānei? Mehemea i pērā i te wā i pānuitia ngā tono ā-hapori i te Hōngongoi ki te Hakihea o tērā tau, kua kitea i whai wāhi te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Tūranga ki te kōrero tahi me Rongowhakaata. Ko te noho tahi, ko te kōrero tahi, koia tērā? Ko tōna tikanga, ka kaha nei ngā kaunihera ā-rohe, ā-motu hoki, ki te noho tahi ahakoa whānau, hapū, iwi rānei.

E ai ki tā te Taraipiunara titiro ko te noho tahi i runga i te tika me te pono, me whakanui tētahi hoa Tiriti i tētahi. I takahia, i tukinohia, te rangatiratanga o te iwi e ngā whakatau a te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Tūranga me ngā mema Pāremata nā runga i tō rātou kore kōrero ki ngā tāngata whenua, tō rātou kore aro mai ki te tino rangatiratanga Māori nā runga hoki i te kore hiahia ki te kōrero ki te tangata whenua. He huri tuarā kē.

Kei te mārama tonu tātou me hāpaitia ngā tikanga o tēnei Whare. He aha te take kāore i pērāhia ngā tikanga mō tēnei pire? Ko ngā mātāpono o te noho rangapū, arā, ko te noho tahi, kōrero tahi i runga i te whakaaro ngātahi, ko te tikanga ka kōrerohia te pire nei ki te taha o ngā iwi o Te Tai Rāwhiti. Ko tā te Tōrangapū Māori i roto i ngā kōrero nei he tono i a Anne Tolley ki te hoki ki te pūtake o tēnei take, arā, ki te kōrero ki a Rongowhakaata me Tūranga Tangata. E ai ki tā mātou e rongo nei, kua pērā kē te kaunihera o Tūranga, kua aro pai ia ki te tikanga o ngā mātāpono o te Tiriti o Waitangi i raro i tēnei pire.

E tika ana tā mātou pakanga mō ngā kōrero hītori o Te Tai Rāwhiti me tō rātou kaha hiahia ki te tiaki i ngā ingoa rangatira i roto i ō rātou whakapapa, ka mutu, ki te whakanui i wō rātou tūpuna. I tōna mutunga, ko tā mātou noa iho me wānanga tēnei take. He kaha nei tō mātou nei whakapono mā te iwi Māori anō āna huarahi e whakarite. Kua tīmata tērā āhuatanga mā tēnei pire, arā, ko te Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. Kei te harikoa hoki te Pāti Māori kia kite mai ai ko te haki tino rangatiratanga e iri ana kei runga ake hei whakanui i te wairua o te Tiriti. Kia ora tātou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us all, as well as to those at home listening in. There is a saying: “A treasured kite, lost to the winds, brings much joy when found again.” The importance and significance of kite-making and kite-flying to the iwi of Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa are obvious when the genealogies and history are looked at. In particular, as relevant to the purposes of this bill, Rongowhakaata was a kite flyer of some repute. In many ways, this was what the Māori Party was attempting to do, when we raised the importance of consultation and involvement of mana whenua, Rongowhakaata. We were flying the kite of justice for the importance of an appropriate and mandated consultation process with tangata whenua.

It is highly appropriate that this bill comes before the House on a day when we are debating the constitutional significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We recall the Court of Appeal in the New Zealand Māori Council case, which declared that the Treaty relationship is akin to, or in the nature of, a partnership—a partnership between Pākehā and Māori that requires each of them to act reasonably towards the other, and with the utmost good faith.

What sort of partnership willingly sets up a scenario to create a silent partner? Rongowhakaata originally gifted the Alfred Cox Park, within the constraints of the Reserves Act 1977 and a deed of trust that represented the “utmost good faith”. Yet how were they treated? With the utmost contempt! The land from which this bill derives its source was wrongfully taken from Rongowhakaata under the Public Works Act.

The issues raised by the bill involve important principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that the Māori Party wanted to flag for the consideration of this Parliament. At both first and second readings of this bill, we raised the issue of the underlying mutual obligations and responsibilities that the Treaty places on each party. We have talked about Kāwanatanga, the Crown’s right to make laws and take land in the public interest, balanced with rangatiratanga, the guarantees of protection of Māori ownership of lands.

The Crown guaranteed tino rangatiratanga to tangata whenua: full authority over their lands. Yet in this case, the Crown assumed that Rongowhakaata land was idle land, and that there would be no great shame in using it as a dumping ground for the town’s rubbish.

We take the time to raise these issues again, because they must be considered part of the public record. We have not been impressed at the outburst of members such as Moana Mackey and National Party MP Anne Tolley—outbursts that have occurred, seemingly, without a heart for all of the people who stand to be affected by this bill.

This bill was never about the Māori Party. We stood to make our points, simply to do what was required of us in representing the views of our constituency. Our adamant belief is that we must defend Māori rights, and advance Māori interests for the benefit of the nation. This is about the Treaty as a living instrument, an ongoing partnership that provides our foundation as a developing social contract—a contract in which all parties come to the table, able to put forward their views and have their positions heard and their concerns reflected.

Even up until the second reading, that social contract was not in place. There had not been a willingness to meet with the appropriate representatives of Rongowhakaata and Tūranga iwi to discuss the implications of this bill. That is all we were asking for—the moral obligation to talk.

We came to this House to ask the question: did the Treaty partners have equal status? Yes or no? If that was so at the time when public submissions were called in July 2005 and closed in December 2005, the record would have shown that the Gisborne District Council made time to discuss the matter with representatives of Rongowhakaata. Active participation, as a partnership principle, is exactly that. It means that local and central government make the effort to engage with whānau, hapū, and iwi.

The tribunal has found that acting reasonably, honourably, and in good faith, requires both Treaty partners to acknowledge each other’s respective interests and authority over natural resources. Tribal tino rangatiratanga was compromised, nay sacrificed, by the decision of both the Gisborne District Council and the local MPs to fail to consult—to fail to respect Māori authority, to fail to initiate dialogue, to ignore tangata whenua.

This House is very clear about the significance of protocol as a means of respecting parliamentary business. It would have been helpful if, for this bill, such respect for protocol had also been taken up. The principles of partnership, of active protection—the duty to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith—should have meant the bill was discussed with local iwi in Te Tai Rāwhiti. Members of the Māori Party, in our speeches throughout this debate, have offered Anne Tolley an opportunity to revisit the issue and seek an audience with Rongowhakaata and Tūranga iwi. We have been informed that the Gisborne District Council has taken up this opportunity, and that there has been an increasing responsibility for proper regard to be had for the impact of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as it applies in this bill.

The tribal histories of Te Tai Rāwhiti, their determination to protect the place names of significance within their whakapapa—and, in doing so, to honour their tūpuna—were worth fighting for. At the end of the day, all that we sought was that the discussion take place. We believe, passionately, in the right of a vibrant Māori society to be actively involved in securing its future cultural survival. That discussion has begun in the case of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill—and the Māori Party is pleased to see that tino rangatiratanga flag flying, as it should, to honour the spirit of the Treaty. Greetings to us.]

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I want to acknowledge members on both sides of the House for their cooperation in the last half an hour to ensure that the timing is right for the next speech. I think that is a real measure of the respect that Jim Sutton is held in. I pay tribute to the members of Labour, National, the Māori Party, the Greens, and New Zealand First for their endeavours.

I have fond memories of Gisborne, because in the early 1980s I spent 2 years as deputy principal of a school called Te Waha-o-Rerekohu Area School in a place called Te Araroa, which is halfway between Gisborne and Ōpōtoki. In fact, Gisborne happened to be the closest place from Te Araroa to get a haircut, for example—it was 100 kilometres away from where we were—so we very often had to go down to Gisborne for that and to get our shopping.

Gisborne is very much like Whangarei, where I currently reside. One of the features of those cities—and it is an abiding memory for me of Gisborne, for example—is Saturday mornings and the amount of kids’ sport there was, and the way parents came out and supported their kids on the sidelines. That is very similar to Whangarei and many other provincial cities the size of Gisborne and Whangarei. What that tells me about these cities—and particularly cities like Gisborne—is that there is a strong sense of community. They are still small enough to have that sense of community there. As a result of that sense of community, they do community things. In many respects, the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill enables community activities that have already been taking place at Alfred Cox Park to continue, but to do so without the awkwardness of it possibly not being legal to carry out those activities.

New Zealand First is therefore very pleased to see that the bill is going to go through the House tonight. We pass on our commendations to the sponsors of the bill—first Janet Mackey and then Anne Tolley—who have pushed it through and made sure that the current awkwardness is resolved and that the people and councillors of Gisborne can get on with the activities that have been going on at Alfred Cox Park.

Having read through the select committee report—New Zealand First obviously did not have a member on the select committee—I want to congratulate all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. When the Gisborne City Council came along with some of its propositions, I believe that all the select committee members acted in a very responsible and sensible manner in progressing the bill in the way they did. So we believe that the passage of this bill—it is pretty obviously going through tonight—will be good for Gisborne.

The only disappointment we have is that if we had had our way, we would have put the bill through its second reading, Committee, and third reading stages all at once so that the people of Gisborne could get on with their business and activities and get on with something that is very special to rural and provincial areas, and that is showing hospitality to people from outside that city and centre. Obviously, the visitors centre will be able to continue completely free from any concerns that it may be acting illegally under the legislative framework.

Without further ado, therefore, New Zealand First is very pleased to be able to say we will be supporting the bill, and very pleased to see that it will be going through this evening.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statement

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of State): In my maiden speech on 2 October 1984, I paid tribute to a couple of my predecessors who had been members of Parliament for Waitaki—both, I thought, far more distinguished than I could ever aspire to be, and I was right. The first was the Rev. Arnold Nordmeyer, one of the architects of New Zealand’s welfare State. Nordie, the author of the 1958 “black” Budget, displayed a degree of raw political courage, rare in any Parliament. Earlier, as Presbyterian Minister for Kurow, he had visited a mother in one of the hydro construction cottages. Her young children were grubby. They had ringworm, nits, and runny noses. Nordie inquired how long it was since they had been bathed. The woman replied that it was some time, as her husband required the use of the bath to brew his beer. Nordie went into the bathroom and pulled the plug on the brew. Nordie might not have voted to lower the drinking age, but I am sure he would have applauded the 75 percent reduction in registered unemployment achieved by Helen Clark’s Government.

An earlier representative, Jock McKenzie, was the Minister of Lands who broke up the big estates for family farm settlement. That policy, I told the House 80-odd years later, had reflected the egalitarian values of New Zealanders and made us the sort of society we still are, by and large, today. The same principles led this Government to abolish interest on student loans. The Hon Jock McKenzie also set up legislation to give effect to the so-called Queen’s Chain. In 1984 I said that the law on public access was ridiculously complicated and uncertain, and needed sorting out. I quoted the anonymous citizen who, when that great proponent of private property rights, the first Earl of Camden, in 1764 fenced off a piece of common land for his own exclusive use, wrote:

The law doth punish man or woman

That steals the goose from off the common,

But lets the greater felon loose

That steals the common from the goose.

I regret that this is still unfinished business I leave behind, but I am confident that quite soon now this Parliament will ensure that the birthright of New Zealanders to enjoy responsible and legal access to our glorious natural environment will prevail over the selfishness of the squatter Camden.

It is reckoned to be better to be in Government for a week than in Opposition for a year, but one does not have to be in this place on either side for long to appreciate that it is better to be in Cabinet. Geoffrey Palmer, when Prime Minister, gave six of us the opportunity to take that step up in February 1990. Six established Ministers, planning to retire at the end of the term, were invited by Geoffrey to resign their portfolios. Well, it did not turn round the fortunes of that Government but it did induce me personally to stay in politics and, indeed, to return in 1993—a courtesy of the generous people of Timaru, having lost my always tenuous grip on Waitaki in October 1990. Well, now it is my turn to stand down in order that new and younger blood may flow into the arteries of the Government, so I reflect on the highlights for me of my ministerial career.

In 1990 I took on agriculture and forestry from Colin Moyle. His were giant shoes in which to step. I would have liked to reform the producer boards, but there was not enough time; nor was there a political mandate, other than the enthusiastic support of Roger Douglas—and he was counting down to retirement. I did think that I might at least remove the monopoly of the Apple and Pear Marketing Board in the domestic pipfruit market, where it was resented by retailers and consumers alike, while preserving the single-desk export arrangement. But this plan was frustrated by the Prime Minister who, he said mistakenly, having misheard a briefing in his limo on the way to a meeting of noisy Hawke’s Bay orchardists, assured the industry that the status quo would prevail. I was utterly dismayed by this. But Cabinet, after intense discussion, decided that the Prime Minister’s word, however careless, must “be our bond”.

The issue that exercised me most in 1990 was how to respond to the devastation left behind by Cyclone Bola. By promoting sustainable land management, we devised and won funding for a scheme called FARM Partnership—the letters of “FARM” standing for “facilitating action for risk management”. FARM Partnership perished in the “mother of all Budgets” the next year, but what remained has endured—the reorientation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry from an organisation that existed to try to make two sheep graze where but one had grazed before to an organisation whose mission is to promote sustainability, where the three pillars of environmental, social, and economic sustainability are seen as interdependent and of equal importance. The Sustainable Farming Fund, established post-1999, has given wings to another ingredient of sustainable agriculture—the energy and innovative impulse of our rural communities. I am continuously amazed by the quality of Sustainable Farming Fund - assisted projects, and suspect the scheme will enjoy a long life.

This time round we have at last done justice to producer board reform. It has been successful because the Government reached agreed positions with the stakeholders in each sector. Undoubtedly, the jewel in the crown is Fonterra. I confess now to having been a sceptic with regard to the one-company model, but was persuaded by cunning regulation that disincentivised any unfair manipulation of milk and share prices by the dominant company. Anyway, even if Fonterra does not work in theory, it is hard to argue with success in practice. Initially the 13th biggest dairy company in the world, Fonterra is now the world’s third or fourth largest, with the vision and the momentum to become New Zealand’s Nokia.

Other highlights of my tenure in rural portfolios have been the ongoing strengthening of biosecurity, food safety, and animal welfare. All these, of course, are important in their own right, but doubly so because of market risks that threaten the living standards of every citizen, whether or not they know it. A personal highlight was, as New Zealand’s Minister of Agriculture, to be honoured to be elected to the chair of the biennial conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. The last New Zealander in that role had been Keith Holyoake in the 1950s. Rome is a beautiful city in a beautiful country. That organisation is an unwieldy bureaucracy but nevertheless it is trying to operationalise an important part of the United Nations vision.

My other major portfolio, which steadily increased in size until it demanded almost a full-time commitment, was that of trade negotiations. I had not anticipated getting trade negotiations. Nothing in my parliamentary experience had prepared me for it. I had expected to be typecast, as usual, in a suite of primary industry portfolios—excluding, of course, forestry, from which I had withdrawn because I could not support my party’s policy of ruling out production from any part of the extensive Crown beech forest estate. What I did not realise until later was that Helen Clark was being vigorously lobbied by suburban greenies not to allow “that Sutton” anywhere near the fisheries portfolio. They said I was too close to industry. I am willing to accept contributions of blue cod.

So I was somewhat surprised when about a month before polling day in 1999 Helen said: “Jim, you’d better have your bag packed on election night.”—my God, I thought, there has been a bad poll in South Canterbury—“It may take weeks to form a Government, so I have agreed with Jenny that you and Lockwood Smith will both go to the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle.” And so it was. I have been to Seattle, Doha, Cancun, Geneva, Hong Kong, all the APEC conferences, bilateral and regional free-trade agreement and closer economic partnership negotiations, and many trade promotion missions, mostly accompanied by the indefatigable Jeremy Spanjaard.

To me, the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity has been China. I am not certain, but I think I have visited China as an MP or a Minister 16 times. Chinese outnumber New Zealanders by roughly 325 to 1. China is demonstrating the world’s most spectacular economic growth. Within the lifetime of most current New Zealand MPs, China will become the world’s biggest economy. It has 21 percent of the planet’s people but only 7 percent of its arable soil. We, on the other hand, have almost no people and a third of the world’s internationally traded dairy produce. China and New Zealand are economic partners made in heaven. We get along famously well. It has given me the greatest satisfaction to be able to contribute to this growing relationship.

For those on the back benches, whether in Government or in Opposition, job satisfaction is thinner on the ground. The situation is better under MMP simply because the dominant party will never let any more small parties into coalition, sharing chairs around the Cabinet table, than it has to. So most select committees are finely balanced. If members on either side of the House wish to contribute anything constructive—and almost all do—they need to start doing deals. I very much enjoyed my time on the Primary Production Committee chaired by Eric Roy, or by me when he was absent. Eric and I were able to forge a bipartisan consensus on almost anything, not infrequently over a feed of fresh-baked muffins from the New Zealand First MP Robyn McDonald. Of course, not everything was of earthshaking importance. I recall the passion of witnesses defending their sacrosanct right to amputate the tails of their puppy dogs. Without their advocacy, there can be little doubt that our suburbs would by now be ankle deep in the shards of valuable vases, swept off coffee tables by the colossal tails of undocked Labradors.

My time on the Finance and Expenditure Committee was a joy. In Opposition, Bill Birch and Michael Cox each described himself as National’s spokesman on finance. Trevor de Cleene, as chair, would play them off against each other whenever he could, which was at least once a week. The Goods and Services Tax Bill was an absolute highlight. Later, when I had taken over his chair, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill was another highlight. The world’s most eminent macroeconomists lined up to provide for the committee an incredible tutorial on monetary policy. It was an opportunity for New Zealand to be at the absolute cutting edge, and a privilege and a joy to be part of it.

Another select committee experience was the Māori Affairs Committee, hearing submissions on the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill. It was not rocket science, but the emotional intensity was white-hot throughout. One witness collapsed and died while giving evidence, despite the best CPR efforts of those present.

I have wonderful memories of my time here. I think of Lange, Palmer, Douglas, Prebble, Mike Moore, and Muldoon—each somewhat larger than life in the roles they played. Jim Bolger, whom I underestimated for a long time, continues to make a huge and valuable contribution. I think of Annette, who is as a sister to me, and Sonja, who shamed me into ironing my own shirts. I also think of Bill Dillon, who helped me to organise a still notorious party that started in the Doidge room and ended up, at 6 in the morning, in the Beehive swimming pool. If Jenny Shipley should happen to be listening—which I doubt—I can assure her now that it was not true that Larry Sutherland was wearing her bathing togs, as she had heard and complained about to our chief whip, Margaret Austin.

There were too many others, of course, to mention. I think of all the brilliant and dedicated public servants with whom I have been privileged to work. I acknowledge all of those who help us in and around this place: drivers, security staff, messengers, Bellamy’s, cleaners, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and many, many more. I think of the wonderful, loyal, selfless people who have helped me and who stand behind every constituency candidate. In Timaru I had a committee called “The Last of the Summer Wine”. To name some would mean omitting others, which would be unfair. My own office staff in Wellington, in Ōāmaru, and in Timaru have been fabulous. Again, after so many years, I cannot mention some—even those nearest and dearest who are now friends for life—without unfairly and arbitrarily omitting others.

And finally, family. Public life is often a selfish business. It is often all-consuming. Those closest to public figures often pay a high, unfair price. To those I have hurt, I say sorry. To those who follow me here, I say to try to do better than I did in that respect. And I hope you all have as much fun and enjoy as much job satisfaction as I have had. It is a great honour to serve the Parliament of the people.

Sitting suspended from 5.51 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): It is an honour to speak to the third reading of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. I start tonight by thanking a number of people. I thank the Gisborne District Council and its staff, in particular Douglas Birt, the council’s corporate affairs manager, who produced this bill and grappled with it for a number of years. In fact, I think it dates back to 2001-02. A great deal of work has been put into the bill, particularly by Gisborne District Council staff, and I thank and pay tribute to them tonight.

I also pay tribute to my former colleague Janet Mackey, who was the electorate MP for the East Coast electorate. She worked very closely with the council over the last 3 years in order to get this bill to Parliament in an acceptable form. I remind people that the bill came to Parliament, then Parliament changed the rules, and it had to go back and be reformatted.

I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its very common-sense approach in consideration of this bill. It took a very pragmatic approach in its desire to help the council through its legal difficulties. I also thank parliamentary counsel for the attention they paid to it.

Finally, I thank all the parties in the House that have supported this bill. It would have been nice to get it through earlier, but, perhaps, having had the opportunity to talk through some of the issues in the background, we are all the better off for its slower progress to this point.

I think it is befitting at the third reading of the bill to pay tribute to Alfred Cox the man. I have in front of me the notice that was published in the Gisborne Herald on 19 April 1971 recognising the passing of Alfred Cox. It is headed “Death of a city pioneer”. Reading about the accomplishments of this man, Mr Arthur Cox, and about what he did for the city of Gisborne makes one feel almost humble on behalf of the people of Gisborne. Mr Cox was obviously a very successful businessman. He bought a large amount of land that he then gifted to the city of Gisborne. To ensure that the beach would be vested for all time for the people of Gisborne he bought a 5-mile marine drive along the Waikanae Beach foreshore, and made many trips to Wellington to secure the cooperation of Ministers and departmental officials to preserve it for the public. He also bought many acres of land adjacent to the Waipaoa River and gifted them to the Cook County to facilitate the construction, at some unknown time in the future, of a traffic bridge to provide an entrance to the city by way of a scenic seafront drive.

His other benefactions to the city included the purchase in 1922 of 3,500 trees from the State Forest Service for a soldiers’ memorial park on Kaiti Hill. He purchased 8 acres in Endcliffe at the top end of Kaiti Beach Road to enable the construction of a road along the top of Kaiti Hill. And, of course, he purchased the 6 acres that are now Alfred Cox Park and donated them to the city to be preserved as a park to be used by the public. He was indeed a great man, and a man who left a huge legacy in Gisborne.

I have a copy of a letter written by his granddaughter Anne Lodge to the Gisborne District Council when it was putting this bill together, explaining that the uses at the centre of this bill were uses “that my grandfather would endorse, if it is necessary to establish whether or not he gave consent.” Anne Lodge said that she and the family believed that it was her grandfather’s desire to promote Gisborne, a place that he much loved, in any way he could. Indeed, his actions proved that he was a great benefactor to the city of Gisborne.

This bill, as we have heard, is about a park where a flea market and a visitor information centre are sited, which is not in accordance with the Reserves Act, and the activities carried out in those areas are not in accordance with the Reserves Act. So this bill seeks to make that right. The flea market is a colourful part of the Gisborne environment. One has to get up awfully early on a Saturday morning to go down and take part. The market opens just before 6 and, mostly, by half-past 8 it is all over and everyone is going home. It is used by people to sell all sorts of things. On one occasion I was next to a lady who was moving house and selling off the extraneous bits and pieces from her house. So it is truly a community centre for the Gisborne people.

The visitors centre on the site is visited by thousands of people seeking information about the city—not just visitors to the city but also locals who go there to get information and buy tickets to various events in Gisborne. It too is a great community centre.

I want to say in conclusion that the purpose of this bill is to right a legal wrong. No council in this country wants to operate illegally, and most of the citizens of any community do not want their leaders knowingly to act illegally. This bill will ease the conscience of both the city council and the community by legitimising the use of Alfred Cox Park. In passing this bill tonight, the reality is that most of the users of the park have no idea that they have been using the park for illegal purposes over the past 40 years.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I rise to speak in support of the third reading of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. This bill is, of course, very important to the people of Gisborne and the East Coast, which I think is marked by the fact that speeches in Parliament on this bill tonight are being beamed live, across three television networks, right into the homes of the people of Gisborne. That just shows what strong support Alfred Cox Park has in the hearts of the people of Gisborne.

As Mrs Tolley has just told the House, this is a simple bill in the sense that it corrects a legal wrong. It makes sure that all the activities that have been taking place on that significant piece of land that have been technically illegal—contrary to the deed from the time when the land was gifted—will now be made valid.

Shane Jones: One law for all!

DARREN HUGHES: As my colleague Mr Jones says, we will have one law for all when it comes to shopping at the Gisborne flea market, and the Government greatly supports that.

The bill received only one submission when it went to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Indeed, the select committee considered the bill for 43 minutes, which one would not think was a long time if it was to be a controversial bill. But this local bill has taken a very long time to get through the parliamentary system. It was first introduced by Janet Mackey, member of Parliament for East Coast from 1993 until 2005. She brought this bill to Parliament for its first reading, to make sure that the Gisborne District Council had the chance to have this important community area recognised by Parliament and to validate the purposes for which the park is being used. As colleagues know, Janet Mackey retired from Parliament at the 2005 election, but the bill still had not been completed, despite having been introduced by her several years before.

So it is really quite fitting that we bring this matter to a close and put this legislation on the statute book with its third reading, to make sure that people who use the flea market in Gisborne can go about their business free from any sense of guilt or any sense that they are breaking the laws of our country in purchasing the many wonderful, varied, and colourful items that I am sure are available at the Gisborne flea market.

Shane Jones: Labour Party tickets!

DARREN HUGHES: Mr Jones suggests that maybe there could be Labour Party tickets at the Gisborne flea market, and I am sure there will be, because I know how hard my friend and colleague Moana Mackey works in that electorate to make sure that the efforts of this Labour-led Government are well known to the people of the East Coast. It takes a lot of constituency work in that area, and I am sure that she and her supporters will be down there at the Alfred Cox Park selling off the next Labour Party raffle, to make sure that all the wonderful prizes that are available can go to the people of Gisborne.

Christopher Finlayson: Legal, I hope.

DARREN HUGHES: Now, of course, as Mr Finlayson says, this will be a legal activity. In that case, I invite him to buy as many Labour Party raffle tickets as his extensive salary will allow him to buy. I note that today, of course, is payday for members of Parliament, and it might be a nice gesture if he was able, this Saturday, to get in the car and drive up to Gisborne, and to partake in all the activities at the flea market. I say to Mr Finlayson that when he has finished at the flea market—as Mrs Tolley said, it starts at about 8.30 in the morning—there will be quite a lot to do afterwards. Rather than go door-knocking he could go to the i-site—the visitor information centre—at the Alfred Cox Park and find out all the fantastic things that are available to do in Gisborne.

I am sure that anyone who has visited the East Coast recently knows what a fantastic economic transformation is under way in Gisborne at the present time. There are lots more jobs in an area that was often depressed for jobs and where it was difficult for school leavers to get into work. Lots more is happening there with the Youth Transitions Service, which I have been to visit. The Modern Apprenticeships scheme is going very, very well. A lot of work has been done by Mr Anderton in the forestry sector, when he was Minister for Economic Development and, latterly, as Minister of Forestry. So Gisborne is a good example of what is happening across a lot of regional and provincial areas with regard to bringing them up to a 21^st century economy and giving opportunities to their people. For those reasons we are very happy to support the bill.

In doing so, we acknowledge Mr Alfred Cox. It is good that his legacy has been mentioned in Parliament throughout the progress of this bill. Clearly, he was somebody who put a lot of emphasis on being able to do good public works for the people of Gisborne. That was not necessarily welcomed universally in the House as the bill went through its stages. The Māori Party, of course, raised significant objections to the bill from a historical perspective, and I can see the arguments they were making. But in terms of the current use of the land, it brings together so many people in Gisborne and provides so many opportunities. While the rest of the country is going mad on TradeMe, I say it is fantastic to hear that the people of Gisborne still get out for community interaction and are able to spend time together enjoying each other’s company and hunting out for the latest bargain.

It never ceases to amaze me what a good bargain one can get on label clothing at these flea markets. We must be getting ripped off by all the good clothing that is available in department stores around the cities of New Zealand, given how cheaply it is made available at flea markets. I assume the clothing is the genuine article, but one never really knows.

The final point I would like to make about the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill is that it is a good example of Parliament working in partnership with local government. I see the Associate Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, in the House tonight. She knows how important it is that central government and local government work hand in hand. That is something this Government has put a huge amount of work into.

Shane Jones: Partnership—the Treaty principles.

DARREN HUGHES: Partnership is important to us. I hear Mr Jones talking about the partnership of the Treaty of Waitangi, which, of course, is a very important part of Aotearoa today, particularly in Māori Language Week.

Working in with local government is one of the key responsibilities of central government. A lot of us found it very frustrating and disappointing last week when the Leader of the Opposition went to the Local Government New Zealand conference and slagged off our local government mayors and councillors. Labour members of Parliament were besieged with calls from mayors and councillors right around the motu, who asked: “Why did that old man come here and criticise us? Why did he get a chance to get up in front of us and bag us and say that we don’t have a role to play?”. I thought that was a very bad example of neglecting the relationship of local government, as we pass into law tonight this Gisborne District Council bill because we see it as being important that we work together.

Of course, this is 2006—we know that. In 2005, which was election year, Dr Brash went to the Local Government New Zealand conference and said: “I acknowledge that in the final years of the last National Government the relationship between central and local government was not all that it should have been.” Of course, that was election year. He was going around trying to curry favour. This year, being a non-election year, he went down there and got stuck into the mayors and councillors and gave them a hard time. Our mayors and councillors around New Zealand deserve a much better deal than that from the National Party. To see National behaving like that with local government undermines the good work that has gone on here with this bill.

So this was a chance for me to get up and make a very brief contribution in support of this bill, which I believe will be welcomed by the council. It brings closure to the people of Gisborne for the whole way in which they unfortunately found themselves on the wrong side of the Reserves Act 1977. They unfortunately found themselves on the wrong side of what was intended by the deed of trust that Alfred Cox left. I am sure that if Alfred Cox were here today he would, most likely, say that anything that brings people together has to be a good thing, and anything that puts people in a good mood and brings them together as a community has to be a very good thing. [Interruption]

I heard an interjection from Mark Blumsky, the failed Mayor of Wellington. Mark Blumsky is one of those people who, when he was the mayor, went around all the wards saying: “We’ve got to put rates up. It’s a terrible thing that we’ve got to put rates up, but we have all these priorities for Wellington. We’ve got to be positive about Wellington, say what a wonderful city it is, and go around the place saying we’ve got to invest and pay off the debt of the city.” Those are all the things he said when he was Mayor of Wellington. Now that he is an Opposition back-bench list MP, he says: “It’s a terrible thing that councils are putting their rates up. I’ll have to go into Parliament tonight and vote to cap the amount that rates are put up by a council.” That is despite the fact that every single year that that man was the Mayor of Wellington—when, by the way, he opposed the Transmission Gully motorway; that was about four or five political parties ago and four or five failed businesses ago—he spent all that time putting up rates, and it was an absolute disgrace.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hate to stop my colleague midstream, but could we please confine the debate to the bill before us. It has nothing to do with Transmission Gully.

DARREN HUGHES: Speaking to the point of order, I point out that the problem I had was that the member’s own colleague was interjecting on me. If members want to take the risk of serving up an interjection, they will have to bear with the results. I have to assert my rights.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am pleased you have overcome your problem.

DARREN HUGHES: All I know about Mark Blumsky as the Mayor of Wellington is that he was a big spender when he was the mayor. Now that he is a back-bench Opposition list MP, he tries to make sure that councils cannot do the very good sorts of things we are debating here tonight with the excellent Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill in the name of Anne Tolley, the local member of Parliament.

There are a lot of good things happening in local government that we support and think are fantastic. We are a partner of local government, which is why we put up our hands to say we could progress this bill all in one stage, rather than dividing it up over several nights. That option was not taken up by the House, but it was certainly an offer that was made by Labour as part of our ongoing commitment to our relationship with local government. I hope that at a future time when I get to visit Gisborne and try to assist in that regard, I will have a chance to visit the Alfred Cox Park and see a city that is on the move—and maybe pick up a bargain or two at the local flea market. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a brief contribution tonight.

Bill read a third time.

Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill

First Reading

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be now read a first time. Before I get into the substance of my speech, I would like to acknowledge our Labour colleagues. I know that, sometimes, fulfilling an obligation that is agreed on one’s behalf is not easy, and I understand that it is not easy for our Labour colleagues this evening, but we admire their dedication and we admire their honour. After all, I have had my time of having to do those sorts of things myself. In supporting this bill going to the select committee, I just hope our Labour colleagues get into the swing of saying yes, and perhaps as it goes through the select committee process they will see the sense of this bill and say yes to it coming out at the other end and becoming law. So at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I will move that later on in the piece.

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill is about one simple thing. I want to say at the outset that New Zealand First is not against the Treaty of Waitangi. We are not against the Treaty of Waitangi being in legislation; we understand that and we honour the Treaty. But we believe that the word “principles” should be deleted, and that is what this bill is about. I do not think everybody has understood that across the country up until now; certainly when talking to me, people have not understood that clearly, but that is what the bill is about.

We understand—as the country does—that the Treaty of Waitangi is an important historical document. It gave all New Zealand citizens rights and protections as British subjects—

Rodney Hide: Even me?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: It gave them even to Mr Hide. It gave rights and protections as British subjects and contained a shared vision for the peoples of New Zealand to live in harmony, which, by and large, we do.

Almost 30 years ago, it was understood that past grievances would need to be addressed, and we have done that under the Treaty claims process. I believe, for the large part, that it has been done honourably and done properly. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 was well intentioned but it laid the foundations for an industry that, to some degree, has become self-serving and self-perpetuating. The situation was exacerbated in 1986 when ill-defined Treaty principles were added to statutes. I think it is important to say that when Sir Geoffrey Palmer was asked what the “principles” actually meant, he said the principles were a flourish. They added a simple flourish. In his view, they added something to the Treaty of Waitangi but he did not define what and described them as a simple flourish.

It is important to remember that these principles were never part of the original Treaty. They became something of a judicial experiment, in our view, because Parliament chose not to define them. Some experiments work and some do not; in our view this one clearly does not. The consequences of their inclusion, in our view, from the very beginning has seen an ongoing process of protracted and expensive litigation that has done little more than fill the coffers of several large law firms and, in particular, of lawyers.

Rodney Hide: How did Geoffrey Palmer get on?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Geoffrey Palmer—with due respect—has done quite nicely out of it as well.

Their removal, in our view, will end this ridiculous situation. More important, the existence of the word “principles” has not led to any tangible benefits for Māori. As we have said many, many times in this House, Māori progress, like progress for non-Māori, is based on a strong economic base, and high-quality employment, education, health, and housing. Inserting undefined principles into legislation does not achieve this. In fact, what it does do is divert time and resources away from valuable programmes and projects into the types of activities described hitherto. We believe this must stop.

There is a simple reason why the principles of the Treaty have not been defined. That is because they cannot be defined. One simple but fundamental solution to sort this out is to remove all references to indefinable and nebulous principles of the Treaty from our statute book. That is the purpose behind this bill that I am introducing to the House today. Most people in the House will remember that countless questions have been asked over many months—in fact, over the last 18 years—about this. My leader and colleagues have asked questions in the House seeking an adequate definition of these principles, but no affirmative answer has been forthcoming. With due respect, the questions that I asked today and the answers I received from Michael Cullen on behalf of the Minister of Justice proved my point. This afternoon in question time, I read out previous answers that the Prime Minister herself had given to those questions back in 2002.

So we have not had adequate definitions of those principles to date. Even further, we have gone to academics and other legal experts and asked them, but the same reply has been given. There is no clear definition on widely diverse interpretations of what the principles might mean in certain circumstances. The simple answer is that the definitions have not been defined and they cannot be, and we believe they should be removed. Again, I repeat that this is not an attack on the Treaty. This is not an attack on the position of the Treaty either in the laws on our statue book or in our country, or on the work that the Treaty of Waitangi builds upon year after year. We believe that both in our day-to-day lives and the way our caucus is made up, and in the discussions we have in this Parliament, we are sympathetic to the Treaty of Waitangi and the objects of it. But we think it demeans the Treaty if words are put in it that cannot be defined and that lead—in my words—to a bun fight on every single bit of legislation. We do not believe that is good for the country, we do not believe that is good law, and we seek, by this bill, to remove that word “principles”.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): National supports the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill but says there is much work to be done on it at the select committee stage. I observe that if all parties treat this matter seriously, rather than simply posturing, there is an opportunity to make considerable improvements to the law.

I begin by making a brief comment about what I regard as an intemperate and crude populist remark contained in the explanatory note to the bill. I am referring to the comment about the task of interpreting such clauses having fallen to judges who “have taken an increasingly activist, liberal, and broad licence in providing a form of definition.” In my experience, there are two kinds of judges: conservative and very conservative. The suggestion that these clauses are being interpreted by wild-eyed liberals is insulting to the judiciary. Any problems that have arisen with Treaty clauses are because this place has either failed to provide an adequate definition of what Treaty principles are or has mindlessly inserted them in legislation in an inappropriate way. This is an opportunity to tidy things up.

As Mr Woolerton observed, there is no comprehensive or authoritative list of principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but guidance can be obtained from some judgments, and I also refer to the Law Commission’s study paper, Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law, where there is a very interesting and useful discussion about Treaty principles. Interestingly, that report referred to a submission the Law Commission had made to the Health Committee on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill 2000 urging Parliament, so far as possible, to provide the courts with guidance as to its precise intention when referring to principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. The commission noted that those who are required to comply with a statute must be able to ascertain with some degree of certainty what they have to do, or omit to do, in order to comply. The undesirability of resolving uncertainty by reference to a court was expressly noted, but needless to say the Law Commission’s submission was ignored by the Government.

This really is a pretty second-rate piece of work by Mr Woolerton. An example of his inattention to detail can be seen in his seeking to repeal Treaty references in repealed legislation. The Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act 1991 and the Maori Fisheries Act 1989 have been repealed, and I very much look forward to Mr Woolerton, or Mr Donnelly, saying something about what exactly New Zealand First is hoping to achieve by deleting Treaty references from repealed legislation.

R Doug Woolerton: I’ll have to sack the lawyer.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, the member will have to sack the lawyer who drafted it! But it is the member’s name that is on the bill, and he bears the responsibility for this kind of sloppiness.

There are four aspects of the legislation I wish to refer to that are contained in Mr Woolerton’s bill: first, general legislation; second, private Acts; third, settlement legislation; and, fourth, two important Treaty statutes that deserve special attention. I refer first to general legislation. The National Party cannot see any reason why there needs to be specific Treaty references in legislation like the Crown Research Institutes Act, the Crown Minerals Act, or the Crown Pastoral Land Act. These pieces of legislation have general applicability; there is no need for a Treaty reference there.

I have greater difficulty with private legislation, and there are at least three examples of private Acts that are referred to in Mr Woolerton’s bill—namely, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act, the Royal Society of New Zealand Act, and the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act of 1996. These three Acts contain Treaty clauses, but private Acts are passed for the benefit of particular individuals or persons and sometimes exempt individuals from requirements of the general law. An example of a private Act is the Sydenham Money Club Act, which reconstituted the Sydenham Money Club from a credit union to a building society. As a matter of principle, I have a few doubts about whether Parliament should unilaterally be interfering with private legislation. If individuals have agreed on the substance of the legislation and the legislation is then passed by Parliament, I do not know that Parliament should necessarily be deleting Treaty provisions from those Acts. But that is something the select committee can look at in closer detail.

Then we have settlement legislation, and Mr Woolerton’s bill refers to a number of pieces of settlement legislation—for example, the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Act of 2003, and the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998. Interestingly, the member, or the person who was the author of this legislation, failed to refer to a number of recent pieces of settlement legislation, such as the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Act of 2005. Many of the references to Treaty principles are contained in the preamble or in the formal apology of the Crown that has been incorporated in the statute. As a matter of legislative drafting, I do not know that it is particularly wise to incorporate apologies in the form of the statute, but, that having been done, I have some doubts in relation to settlement legislation about whether particular references to principles of the Treaty, or the Treaty, should be removed. Again, that is an issue the select committee can look at when it comes to consider this bill.

Two other important Treaty statutes need specific reference, and these are the fourth category I identified. The first is the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, from which my friend Mr Woolerton seeks to remove any reference to principles of the Treaty. But such an amendment would remove the very jurisdiction of the tribunal, which was established to investigate breaches of the Treaty, and I cannot see that this Parliament can responsibly and, indeed, sensibly—if New Zealand First does not want to be sensible, it should be at least responsible—delete the proposal that the Treaty of Waitangi Act be amended by deleting those provisions. Then there is the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act of 1992, particularly the references to section 10, which Mr Woolerton refers to, where, for example, a provision requires consultation in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. That is an example of where the phrase is simply meaningless, adds nothing to the section, and could be deleted.

So, as can be seen, quite a lot of work needs to be done on this legislation, but I believe it provides the select committee with an opportunity to clean up a bit of legislative mess that has developed over the years, and I would not have thought the Government would necessarily be opposed to that. Indeed, once upon a time, we had a Coordinating Minister, Race Relations. It was only Mr Mallard, and he held the portfolio for only a short period of time. I think he was as effective as Coordinating Minister, Race Relations, as the member for Te Tai Tonga would know, as he was as Minister of Education—[Interruption] I do not know that the member should do that—and as he is now Minister for Economic Development. But in 2004 the new Coordinating Minister, Race Relations said that many references to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation may not be relevant and that he would be reviewing references to the Treaty in legislation. Did he do anything? No, of course he did not. Then, in February 2004, he said that the Treaty was in quite a few Acts and that principles are set in them that are quite inconsistent and in some cases a bit incoherent—just like he is at question time.

So this bill provides an opportunity for the select committee to look at this legislation—because I agree there are some inconsistent and incoherent references to the Treaty—and do a decent job to tidy it up. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee—

Darren Hughes: Deputy chair.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: deputy chairman, as the boy wonder from Ōtaki says—I look forward to receiving this bill in the select committee, having a good look at it, and seeing whether we can do something with it because, even though it is flawed in its present form, it does raise a number of important issues. I think that if the select committee does its job we can tidy it up very well.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): It is good to follow on from the new member, who is, of course, a neighbour of mine. It is good to see him on his feet in the House. I would have to say, though, that one of the things he should not do in the House is start deriding somebody else’s label. Mr Mapp’s label of “PC Eradicator” must be one of the most stupid titles ever invented in this House. But I acknowledge that although it sounds as though National members this evening intend to send this bill to a select committee, in the hope that there may be some clarification, they are themselves saying they will not be voting for the bill.

That brings me to my colleagues from New Zealand First, and I acknowledge the New Zealand First folk in the House. We are watching, I think, one of the more sophisticated aspects of MMP operating this evening. One of the things about MMP that New Zealanders are getting their heads around at the present time is something that all parties in the House are now well used to—they have been in situations like this—that is, minority Governments. It means, of course, that Governments have to work out situations with other parties in terms of their partnerships or their agreements on confidence and supply. What we are talking about tonight is part of New Zealand First’s agreement. New Zealand First understands that what we will say about this bill will reflect not only that agreement but also the opinions of the Labour part of the Government.

So that brings me to the bill and, for members who have been in the House for a little while, we are back on familiar ground. This member’s bill is the identical member’s bill that was introduced in February 2005 by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Its purpose is to remove all references to the expressions “the principles of the Treaty”, “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, and “the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles” from a range of specified statutes. It also proposes to repeal any regulations promulgated under statutes that refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In other words, the New Zealand First Party has something against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Pita Paraone: Tell us what they are.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Mr Paraone is asking what they are, and during the debate those New Zealand First members will hear a great number of those principles outlined, such as partnership, a principle like all the “P” words that go with that, which of course will be talked about through the debate.

As I said, in accordance with the supply and confidence agreement with New Zealand First, the Government intends to support this bill through its first reading. That will enable it to go to a select committee, which will allow debate on the appropriate place of the Treaty principles in legislation. It reflects the fact that constitutional principles are often the subject of debate. The Treaty is a constitutional document. The principles that underlie it are therefore points of debate, and we are willing to go to that point. But let me make it unequivocally clear: the Government supports this bill in its first reading only, because it has genuine concerns about the need for this legislation and about the negative impact it will have on promoting an enduring and positive, cooperative relationship between Crown and Māori if the bill is allowed to proceed beyond the select committee. That is our view; that is clear.

My colleagues from the Māori caucus have made clear that they do not see this bill as having a positive impact on any of the relationships that we have been at pains to build up between Māori and the Crown. Therefore, while the debate can be held, we will not ultimately be supporting the bill. The concerns we have are obvious. This bill, if it goes forward, will have an adverse impact on relationships between Māori and the Crown. In recognition of the important place of the Treaty, successive Governments have put the Treaty’s principles in legislation; that has been something that successive Governments have done and have respected. In fact, most of those pieces of legislation were passed during the 1990s under a National Government.

In terms of removing the references, I say that that would not obstruct what is going on, anyway, because we would undoubtedly find that the courts would simply continue to operate as if the references were there, because they need to refer to the principles of the Treaty. They have been referring to those principles for some time. They will continue to do so because it is in the practice of the courts to do so. So nothing would change. There would, of course, be a risk of litigation, because people would then begin referring back to what courts have already done, and going back to those rulings to say: “Let us litigate these decisions because they exist.”

There are inconsistencies in the bill. Other legislation, for example, would be disturbed by this bill. It contains no consequential amendments to other legislation, and there are other inconsistencies in it. The bill removes a whole set of substantive rights. For example, the deletion of the reference in a section of the Treaty of Waitangi Act would remove the power of the Waitangi Tribunal to order the resumption of the Crown Forest Lands Act. In other words, if we did that kind of thing we would simply contradict a whole range of other legislation.

All these arguments have been traversed before. The Government’s clear position is to send the bill to the select committee and no further.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first two speakers had 10 minutes, as they have on all members’ bills. All other speakers have 5 minutes.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party will oppose this bill, as we have similar bills. It is amazing how often this issue keeps coming up and being stopped dead in its tracks. We are really concerned for Labour, and we certainly look forward to hearing from its Māori MPs as to their views on this legislation. What do they think about it, given that their party is going to support it? It is a very sad situation.

Poor old Doug Woolerton. What has to be remembered here, when he says that the whole point of this bill is to get rid of the industry, is that his leader has been saying to get rid of the industry for years and years. Now Doug has taken up the mantra. Well, I tell Doug that it is just too late. We have had the principles in legislation in this country for 31 years. For 31 years we have had a massive amount of jurisprudence on the issues around the principles—not that it is all good, and not that it is all a good thing, but there has been that jurisprudence and work done. We are finally getting to the point where many of the issues have been resolved. Doug is just too late.

What has this supposed industry spurned as a result of this jurisprudence? I will tell members what it has done. Generations of young Māori lawyers have been able to come through the ranks, enabling them to take control of their hapū and their iwi and to be active and work for their people. These are the new leaders of this country. There is a new generation of judges and a new generation of politicians. These are the things that have arisen out of the 30 years. Business management graduates are coming up who will be able to manage the resources that arise out of, in part, the principles and their application to various areas. They are industry leaders in agriculture and in information technology.

The Waitangi Tribunal has done amazing work with the tools it has had—flawed as those tools might be—doing things for New Zealanders as a whole, such as protecting New Zealand’s forests. If it were not for the Treaty, the principles, and the application by the tribunal this country would have sold off its Crown forests in massive amounts. It has enabled Māori broadcasting to become an amazingly successful industry in this country, in television and radio. It is te reo Māori week; it is Māori Language Week. But for having this tool—like I say, flawed as it is—we would not have had Māori language protected in law.

Hon Brian Donnelly: That’s not the principles.

METIRIA TUREI: It is the principles. This is the tool that has been used because it was the only one available to enable that protection to happen. We, the Greens, completely agree that the tool is flawed. We do not concern ourselves with the principles. They are not in any of our policies. We never refer to the principles, because we believe it is the text and the articles that are relevant. But we will not support a bill that eliminates the principles from legislation and from the legal processes, leaving just a huge lacuna—a massive hole—where that jurisprudence lives, because that would return us back to the days before the principles were enacted and used. It would return us back to the days when the Treaty was a nullity and we were not able to use any tools in law to see that our rights as tangata whenua were being met and dealt with properly in legislation. That, ultimately, is what New Zealand First wants and is looking to do—to go back to those days.

I will give members an example, because I think what they are trying to do is so sad. I just refer back—it is Māori Language Week—to the tribunal report of, I think, 1985 that used the principle of active protection to make sure that te reo Māori was an important and significant language. That led directly to the 1987 Māori Language Act, which states that Māori language is a protected and official language of this country. Let us just go back to 1979, before the implications and use of that principle, when Dun Mīhaka ended up with a decision from the Court of Appeal saying that although Māori language in New Zealand was a matter of public importance, the Treaty had no legal bearing on the matter. The court based its decision on the English common law that applied in New Zealand because there were no tools for it to make any other decision.

The principles are flawed. We would like to see a hapū-based decision-making process in place, but unless New Zealand First or any other party is prepared to enable the signatories to the Treaty—the hapū signatories who are entitled to rangatiratanga—to make those decisions and have a process, there is no room in this Parliament, and certainly not with support from the Greens, to eliminate the only tool that Māori has ever had to be able to ensure we have legal recognition in this country. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): E te Kaikōrero, tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. Kātahi te pire heahea rawa atu, pai kē māu tēnā e whakamārama ake. Anei kē te tīmatanga mai o te pukapuka whakamārama o Te Puni Kōkiri mō ngā mātāpono o Te Tiriti o Waitangi: “He rangi tā matawhaiti, he rangi tā matawhānui.” Me kī, ki te whāiti te titiro, he whaiti anō hoki te paerangi ka whāia haeretia e ia. Mēnā e whānui ana te titiro, ka whānui anō hoki ngā huarahi kei mua i a koe. Kua tae mai te Pāti Māori ki tēnei pire ā-mema, me te mōhio anō hoki, me titiro whānui kē tātou ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi hei kupu taketake o Aotearoa. Ko te mate o tēnei pire, he whāiti kē tōna titiro ki te Tiriti ki tōna itinga rawa, he aronga whāiti, he pae tata tōna.

Ko tā te Tiriti, he waihanga i te āhua o te whenua nei he puna ora me kī, kia whai mana ai te tū o te Kāwanatanga. He kupu ērā e whakamārama nei i te aronga o te Karauna ki te tangata whenua; kia noho kōhatu te tino rangatiratanga o te iwi, kia noho pūmau te whenua Māori i roto ngā ringaringa o te Māori, kia pūmau te rangatiraranga o te tangata. Na Tā Robin Cooke, te Perehetini o Te Kooti Pīra te kōrero: “Koia te kupu whakaharahara rawa i roto i ngā kōrero ō nehe i Aotearoa nei, e kore e taea te tuku i ōna pou.” Engari i tēnei pire, ko tāna mahi ko te tapahi i te pito, ko te tuku i te motu kia rewa. Ko tāna mahi ko te ūkui i ngā kupu o te Tiriti i ngā ture katoa o Aotearoa. Arā, mai i ngā kupu taki, i ngā whakamārama, i ngā kupu āpiti, i ngā whakaritenga, me ērā atu o ngā whakatau ā-ture.

Anei pea te pātai nui e koa mā. He aha te mea kawa, kino ranei o te whakaaro kia noho tonu mai ānei mātāpono, o te whakanui rānei i te Tiriti hei tūāpapa mō Aotearoa? Koia nei tā te Pāti Māori tū. Me waiho ko Te Tiriti o Waitangi hei tūāpapa mō te motu kia whakatinana i te moemoeā, arā, kia whai wāhi ai ngā taha e rua, arā, a Māori rāua ko Pākehā i roto i te whakahaere o te motu. Me kī, i tae ā-tangata whenua atu ō mātou tūpuna ki te Tiriti. E ai ki a rātou, he mana taketake anō ō rātou. E ai ki tō rātou titiro, he mana ake tō te Tiriti, he whānui tonu tōna titiro kia noho ia hei korowai, hei kupu oati mō ngā tāngata katoa e noho nei i Aotearoa. Kei tōna hōhonutanga, ko te Tiriti he whakawhitinga o ngā whakatau i waenganui i ngā tāngata whai rangatiratanga, kātahi, ka puta ētahi here ki runga i tēnā, i tēnā. I tēnei wā, ē ko te āhua nei kei te hiahia tētahi o ngā hoa haere o te Tiriti kia puta.

Ko te noho ā-rangapū i raro i te Tiriti, he mea tupunga, ehara i te mea kōhatu. I te Take ā-Whenua i te tau 1987, ko tā te Kooti Pīra whakamārama, ko te tikanga “he mea whai oranga” te Tiriti, he mea hanga hei tūāpapa mō te nohonga ngātahi i waenga i te Māori me te Karauna. Anō nei “he kākano, kaua ko tētahi mea kua tupu kē kia taea ai te tāpiri atu i ngā whakaaro”. Kia tupu taua kākano ki tōna puāwaitanga, me whakairi te Tiriti hei mea ora, hei mea akiaki, kia here i te nohonga tahi o te tangata mo ake nei.

Engari kia tau mai a raruraru, ko te āhua nei ko te mahi o te hoa, ko te oma atu i ngā whakatau i whakaritea. Ko tā te Tākuta Brash nei i mua o te pōti matua kua hipa, ko te whakairi i te haki mā, ko te tuohu i te māhunga anō hoki, anō nei ka hinga rātou. Hei tāna, ka ūkuia katoatia ngā kōrero pōrangi, ngā kōrero kaikiri ā-iwi, otirā ko ngā whakapuakanga ā-mātāpono 39 i ngā ture katoa. I te taenga atu ki te wā whiriwhiri ko wai te hunga ka noho hei hoa Kāwanatanga, ko tā Te Rōpū Reipa, ko te whiu atu i tōna aronga ki te Tiriti, ā, anei te utu, ko te utu e kōrerohia ake nei, ko te tautoko i tēnei pire me tana haere ki te komiti whāiti. Ka mutu, nā runga i tōna hiahia tūturu nei kia kitea mai ai i a ia i ngā nūpepa, pouaka whakaata, kua tukuna ko tā Winitana Pita pire, arā, te mea i hinga i te Pipiri o te tau kua hipa i raro i te ingoa o Doug Woolerton.

E kore rawa te Pāti Māori e noho whakamuri, e noho wahangū rānei i te Whare Pāremata nei. Ko tā mātou kē, ko te kōkiri i ngā take kua puta mai i te hapori, i te iwi kia tae rā anō ki te wā ka noho te Tiriti hei mea wānanga i waenganui i te Karauna me te Māori. Kia ora tātou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all of us. What a stupid bill! Te Puni Kōkiri’s recent guide to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi begins with the following words: “He rangi tā matawhāiti, he rangi tā matawhānui.” The person with a narrow vision sees a narrow horizon; the person with a wide vision sees a wide horizon. The Māori Party comes to this member’s bill acutely aware of the need for an all-embracing approach to the Treaty of Waitangi to be viewed as the founding document of Aotearoa. The bill, however, restricts the view of the Treaty to its most minimalist state—a narrow vision for a narrow future.

The Treaty gives shape to this nation—as a key source of the Government’s moral and political claim to legitimacy, and as a document that articulates the commitment of the Crown to tangata whenua to have their tino rangatiratanga preserved, Māori land ownership emphasised, and chiefly authority protected. It is a document of which Sir Robin Cooke, the then President of the Court of Appeal, said: “It is simply the most important document in New Zealand’s history … a nation cannot cast adrift from its own foundations.” Yet this bill today is prepared to cut those ties, to cast the nation adrift by eliminating from all New Zealand statutes—all preambles, interpretations, schedule, regulations, and other provisos—any reference to principles.

One has to ask what is so “offensive” about the concept of having principles, or honouring the Treaty as the basis of our constitutional platform for Aotearoa. The Māori Party stands for Te Tiriti o Waitangi providing the base for constitutional change in our nation so that shared governance becomes a reality. Our tūpuna entered into the Treaty as indigenous people with sovereign rights. They saw the Treaty as having both the capacity and the mana to act as a constitutional document for all people who live in this country. At its very heart, the Treaty is an exchange of promises between sovereign peoples, giving rise to obligations for each party—a promise that one part of the partnership is now trying to pull out of.

As with any partnership, the Treaty partnership is forever evolving. In the lands case in 1987, the Court of Appeal suggested that the Treaty should be interpreted as a “living instrument”, laying the foundation for “an ongoing partnership” between Māori and the Crown, which should be seen as “an embryo rather than a fully developed and integrated set of ideas”. Nurturing that embryo into full life requires the Treaty to be a living and dynamic document, to secure an enduring partnership.

But when the going gets tough, it seems some parts of the partner are running from their responsibilities. Dr Brash flew the white flag of defeat, well before the election, stating they would remove what he called “racial nonsense”, any references to the principles, from 39 pieces of legislation. When it came time to stitch together a coalition Government, Labour was prepared to throw away its so-called commitment to the Treaty by agreeing to support this bill going to select committee. And in a desperate attempt to get some media attention in this country, Winston Peters’ bill, which was last voted down in June 2005, resurfaces under the name of Doug Woolerton.

The Māori Party will not renege on our responsibilities as part of Parliament and also to our constituency tangata whenua. We respect the fact that unless and until it is freely renegotiated between the Crown and Māori, the Treaty stands; it continues in being. Thank you all.]

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. United Future will support the first reading, but it sticks in the craw of our throat to do so. I repeat a line I used last time we spoke on this bill, which is that it is a shabby vehicle, but it is the only one leaving the station, and we are very keen to hear from New Zealanders on this important issue. Our concerns are that whenever we pass legislation in this House that makes reference to the principles of the Treaty we have this extended diversionary debate at every step about what the principles are and why they not defined. We seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on this issue.

One of the concerns we have is that whenever we refer to principles or to the spirit of a document, we risk watering down the original text. In regard to this matter, when we refer to the principles of the Treaty, we would ask what that does to the original text. Some speakers have made out that there is no understanding in any department regarding what these principles are, but I think that is false. Substantial work has been done in several quarters about the principles of the Treaty and that is part of the discussion I would like to have as to whether quantifying that and agreeing on it could be helpful. Rather than eliminating the phrase, we could deepen our understanding, so that when we refer to the principles of the Treaty, if that is considered a desirable way forward, we understand what we mean by that, very, very clearly.

One of the things that most disturbs me about this bill is some of the comments in the explanatory note. For instance, the sponsor of this bill has said that he does not want to get rid of references to the Treaty, but actually he does because clearly he wants to eliminate all references to the expression “Treaty of Waitangi and its principles”. I think that is a disturbing thing. If New Zealand First members wanted to resubmit the bill with a different flavour they should have changed the commentary and made that clear. They were too lazy to do that, and I find that disturbing.

New Zealand First members talk about the opportunity that they believe this expression offers judges to become increasingly activist and liberal in their interpretation of the law, and I think that discussion needs to be had to see whether clarity can be brought to it. Then it gets a bit more disturbing. They say under their third point in the explanatory note that as far as they are aware, references to the principles of the Treaty have had no tangible benefit to date for Māori. I like the example mentioned by the Green member when she referred to the principle of “active protection”, I think was the term she used, as it applied to te reo, and the good work that was able to do.

The phrase in the explanatory note that really upsets me, after stating that there has been no benefit to Māori from having references to the Treaty’s principles, states: “… it has also surreptitiously created unrealistic expectations among Maori in relation to their entitlements from society.” I hope I am not the only one who finds that statement extremely disturbing. I would like to think that submitters to this bill will pick up on the commentary, because it certainly is a very strong flavour that affects the bill.

United Future will support the bill because we believe that discussions could be had that could be advantageous. But, beyond the first reading, unless there are substantial changes, we will support it no further.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I know that my speech is awaited with eager anticipation, as it will indicate which way the ACT party will throw its mighty weight. It is surprising that the principles—

Shane Jones: Foxtrot!

RODNEY HIDE: Well, the jealousy of this Labour Party knows no end.

It is amazing how this real accident of the principles of the Treaty being inserted into our legislation could achieve such constitutional status and have such high-minded speeches being given about it. The truth of what happened is that in the State-Owned Enterprises Act that Geoffrey Palmer was negotiating with Māori, he thought he had pulled a fast one because he put in the provision about the principles of the Treaty. Māori felt really good about that.

Geoffrey Palmer then went back to Cabinet and told them not to worry, that it did not mean anything. That is what Sir Geoffrey Palmer said—that putting the principles of the Treaty into legislation did not mean anything. Then the discussion around the Cabinet table was that normally judges like to think that the experience of putting something into legislation must mean something, and that Parliament would have intended something. But Sir Geoffrey Palmer said: “No, it’s OK. It doesn’t mean anything.” Of course, what has happened now is that it has grown into a huge industry. We should make a distinction between the Treaty and the principles, because it is huge.

Shane Jones: It’s part of the constitution.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, Shane Jones talked about it being part of the Māori constitution. That may be true, but the problem is that if one accepts that Parliament is Sovereign, then it is for Parliament to decide what the rules are and what the law is, and it has never done it for these principles. We hear Ministers and other people getting up in this Chamber to say that the principle means this or the principle means that. What sort of jurisprudential adventure is that? They say: “Oh, the principles of the Treaty!” and wave their hands and get all solemn about it but do not actually determine what it means. They leave it up to unelected bureaucrats and judges—poor things—to interpret what it all means.

So the ACT party rises—and I am sorry; I know we are disagreeing with my friends in the Māori Party on this—to support this bill going to select committee and to at least have a debate. Mr Finlayson, who is the finest lawyer in the House, says the bill can be fixed up, so I think we should support it through the House. But I will make a wee comment about the politics of this.

Mr Maharey said this was the sophistication of MMP in operation. Well, let us just think about that for a moment. It means the Labour Party is going to support something that it hates to its core. It hates it. Not one Māori MP from the Labour Party has got up and explained why they are voting for this bill. Of course, New Zealand First felt oh so good. It has the baubles of office—a little poodle sitting there—and it has got the Labour Party to agree to this bill. But the stupid things in New Zealand First got agreement to only a first reading. So the Labour Party will vote for the bill going to a select committee and then will kill it. New Zealand First has signed up to the Labour Party to achieve nothing. How stupid could they be?

I ask Mr Woolerton why New Zealand First did not ask the Labour Party to support the bill all the way if it believed in and had the courage of its convictions. The Labour Party has done the New Zealand First MPs like a dinner. Helen Clark said to them: “Don’t worry, we’ll support you to the first reading, and we’ll kill it there.” That is what she has told the Māori caucus. I have to say to Doug that Shane Jones and the other Māori MPs are all laughing at him. They are all saying that Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and—as John Tamihere observed—the “smarmy” one, are tricky.

They are so tricky that even the wily old fox Winston was outfoxed by the Labour Party and the Māori caucus. They got New Zealand First’s support for the Government and its Budget in return for what? Labour is going to vote for the first reading of the bill and then kill it. I always knew that New Zealand First were useless; I just did not realise quite how useless they truly were in signing up to this agreement with the Labour Party. But I have to say that we support this bill.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I have to say that is wonderful, coming as it does from a member who, in the 10 years since he has been here, has actually produced nothing, and who belongs to a party that has produced absolutely nothing. But I do not want to go on to slag them off and do those sorts of things. I ask members to consider a scenario. Let us imagine we had a Crimes Act that simply stated that all people should be good at all times, and then we left it up to the courts to determine what was meant by being good. I believe that very, very few people would think that was anything but a nonsense. Yet that is exactly what we have with the insertion into legislation of clauses that refer to undefined principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I want to quote from the law professor Matthew Palmer, who said: “From a traditional legal perception the Treaty of Waitangi exists in a shadow land—half in and half out of law. It has no legal status in and of itself. In order for the Treaty to be part of the law it has to be made so. The primary way in which this occurs is through incorporation in legislation.” That is the Treaty of Waitangi.

However, the Treaty is itself internally contradictory. It was drawn up by an Irishman, who left school before the age of 10 and was too sick at the time he drafted it to even leave the ship, based on instructions from someone half a world away. It was then translated overnight by people who were far from being constitutional lawyers, and who did not have a deep understanding of te reo Māori—neither Henry Williams nor Edward Williams were experienced translators—into a language that did not have the lexicon of international legal concepts. It was not translated into indigenous Māori but into missionary Māori.

The Treaty is not a founding document in the sense of being a constitution, but Lord Normanby’s instructions required Hobson to first gain the free and intelligent consent of Māori before he annexed New Zealand. So the Treaty is the document upon which our nation was founded. It is a defining document for our nation, in the sense that it spells out a set of enduring relationships. Chief Justice Prendergast got it wrong. It is not a simple nullity; it defines our nation.

However, because of the Treaty’s internal contradictions and its capacity for multiple interpretations, lawmakers have been reluctant to insert it directly into legislation. As Matthew Palmer has said, the Treaty of Waitangi is not sensibly susceptible to ordinary techniques of statutory interpretation. Instead, legislators have inserted the pusillanimous term “principles of the Treaty”—a simple flourish, as Geoffrey Palmer referred to the term when he inserted it into the State-owned enterprises legislation. Yet it is his son who demolishes his father’s work. Matthew Palmer argues that if the only point in putting in a reference to the Treaty is symbolic, it is unnecessary and unhelpful. If it is to express Treaty implications for that legislation, as required by the Cabinet Manual since 2001, then that is the civic implication that should be addressed and put into the legislation.

I make reference to the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act 2002. Two Labour Ministers on the Education and Science Committee refused to put in any reference to the principles of the Treaty because that was too vague and did not specify exactly what was intended, and instead came up with the wording: “The tertiary education strategy must address … the development aspirations of Maori and other population groups.” I will tell people, right at the end of this speech, who the members were who refused to allow reference to the Treaty principles to go in there. On the basis of that, I will rest my case.

In 2002 New Zealand First decided to test whether the emperor had any clothes on. We asked a number of Ministers what they understood the principles of the Treaty to be. The answers were enlightening. The real doozy came from the then Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs. She told the House that she knew a certain local body was complying with the principles of the Treaty because it was required to do so under section 8 of the Resource Management Act. But, when asked what the principles were that the local body was required to comply with, she essentially told us that it was not up to the Government to tell or explain to local government what the principles of the Treaty were. Another Minister of Education said that if we wanted to find out what the principles were, we should look at the Education Act 1989. I have to tell that Minister that there is no reference to the principles of the Treaty in that Act.

I wind up by saying that the two members on the Education and Science Committee in 2002 who refused to allow the insertion of the term “principles of the Treaty” were Nanaia Mahuta and Tariana Turia. I rest my case.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): National supports the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. Steve Maharey seemed to indicate that National was not supporting it, but we do support it going to the select committee because National has for some years now recognised that the continued insertion of the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” into various enactments, without much guide as to what that phrase means, has given rise to a serious problem. More important, though, it has over the years in my view brought the Treaty claims process into disrepute. That is unfair, especially to the process, but more so to Māori who under that process seek fairness and reparation for injustices visited upon them in the previous 160 years. Bringing this matter to Parliament at least gives us all an opportunity to debate the issue and gives an opportunity for the public, who are concerned as well, to come and give their views.

National’s support is qualified, however, and my colleague Chris Finlayson set out very clearly where we think the bill is deficient and how we will be proposing to improve it. The bill is deficient; it is flawed. Mind you, it is what we would expect of a party like New Zealand First, whose members are more concerned with posturing and wanting to make a political point. It is one thing to throw a bill together and to propose carte blanche—obviously without much thought as to the impact—the wholesale removal of certain clauses, just to make a political point, but it is another thing entirely to apply a measure of intelligence to what is a hugely important issue, to ensure that the bill does remedy the situation that we all think has arisen and that needs to be addressed, and also to avoid a situation where we might create more claims. It might give rise to fresh injustice and, as a consequence, new claims. Would it not be laughable if New Zealand First becomes responsible for legislation that creates a whole new gravy train, as they like to put it, of claims? This bill has the potential to do that.

I want to give two examples. The Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act states that the meaning of Ngāi Tahu claims means all claims made at any time by any Ngāi Tahu claimant and founded on rights arising in or by the Treaty of Waitangi, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and it goes on, basically setting the heart of that settlement. I wonder whether New Zealand First realises that in that settlement, as with the others, it is ripping the heart out of those settlements. Why would it do that? It is because it is only trying to make political points. It would not do it because it is applying some intelligence. That is why my colleague Chris Finlayson has indicated clearly that there are categories of enactments where it is probably right and proper to remove that phrase, but there are other enactments where it is utterly ridiculous to take that phrase out—not unless we are going to remove only the two words “the principles” and leave in “the Treaty of Waitangi”.

I want to refer briefly to section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Rodney Hide shows a lack of knowledge when he talks about the principles of the Treaty somehow “arising” in 1986. It is in the 1975 legislation. Mat Rata introduced that legislation. He knew exactly what he was doing when he introduced it, Māori knew too, because how can we refer only to the Treaty, when there are two versions—Māori and English? Māori mostly signed the Māori version. So if we are to have just “the Treaty” without a qualifying remark, what version are we to refer to? Mat Rata knew exactly what he was doing when he inserted that clause. We must take the two versions, and from those two versions we elicit some underlying principles. That is what he did then. He did not envisage that subsequent Governments would poke the Treaty everywhere, and make it a nullity.

This bill is flawed. It is typical of New Zealand First. This issue requires intelligence and it requires all of us as we debate this bill to show a measure of respect to the people who first brought in the Treaty process, introduced it in good faith, and wanted nothing more than the reconciliation of New Zealanders, one with another. We must bear that in mind as we see this bill go through the process.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs): Sometimes we do things that we do not like, but we need to do them so that we can truly appreciate what we have. This is the second time this bill, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, has been introduced into Parliament. In the last term of Parliament Winston Peters brought it to the House. At that time Labour voted against it. I gave a speech at the time and said that the Labour-led Government was not prepared to send a signal that it was walking away from Māori, and that is why Labour members voted against the bill the first time. That is still the case today. We do not agree with the intent or purpose of this bill.

However, the political landscape has changed. We have had a general election, and voters have made their choice. Interestingly enough, in the Māori electorates the party vote for Labour was significant but, sadly, we could not stitch together an agreement that could ensure that matters like this would not be brought before the House. The current Government formation means we have an agreement with New Zealand First. Part of that agreement requires that we support this bill going to a select committee, and that is all. We will do that on the basis that although this issue will be canvassed at a select committee, there is no undertaking beyond that point.

It needs to be said that although National is trying hard to “cool up” its image, its real challenge will be to embrace diversity. Labour is a broad-based party, made up of many peoples. We understand that in trying to shape a common purpose and vision, we need to work hard to find ways of working together. That is how it should be if we are committed to an enduring relationship—and that is much like the intent of the Treaty of Waitangi.

One thing we have all learnt since Don Brash’s Ōrewa speech is that if we scratch the surface of our society, there is a delicate underbelly, and we expose the most negative aspects of the New Zealand Aotearoa psyche. Much of that is based on ignorance, prejudice, and blatant disregard of differing world views—one of which is Māori. Removing references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation would do little to build consensus or a constructive way forward.

A huge body of knowledge has been accumulated over time, including knowledge from the judiciary and from political and academic discourses. The point is that we are not starting from a blank slate, and neither should we be. Aotearoa New Zealand has walked too long in the shadow of our shameful colonial history. We need to walk confidently ahead, ensuring that the principles underpinning the Treaty provide a practical opportunity to go forward together, and to secure a strong foundation for our country and all its people.

This bill will not improve or speed up the Treaty settlement process, as the negotiated outcomes and the apology for historical injustices—an important component of Treaty settlement legislation—are most certainly linked to the principles of the Treaty. There may be a real opportunity for discussion regarding the principles as defined by Labour in 1989, which have guided much of the discourse over the last 17 years. If we look at some of those principles, we understand much of the intent of what those who originally defined them were trying to achieve.

One is the principle of government—that the Government has the right to govern and to make laws. The next principle is the principle of self-management. Iwi have the right to organise as iwi and, under the law, to control the resources they own. The principle of equality is that all New Zealanders are equal under the law. The principle of reasonable cooperation means that both the Government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern. The principle of redress means that the Government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation will occur. These are the types of principles that will guide a way forward, and they could be an opportunity for us all.

It is very important to understand that the evolution in Treaty discourse has changed over time. More recently, the way in which Treaty clauses have been included in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act and the Local Government Act 2002 really reflects where we have come to as a nation. The Treaty clauses in both of those Acts reflect an approach of providing greater clarity of the purpose of referring to the Treaty in legislation in order to make operational the relationship between the Crown, Māori, and other New Zealanders. These examples provide certainty about how relationships should work so that pragmatic and practical working relationships can be forged. This is a constructive way forward.

Once again, I say that I do not support the intent of the New Zealand First bill. It rejects the path we have come down to build an Aotearoa New Zealand we can all be proud of. This is not the next foreshore and seabed issue. A Labour Government established the Waitangi Tribunal, set out the principles in 1989, continued the Treaty settlements process, and provided the platform for Māori development with two Hui Taumata in two decades. Those are just some of the generational achievements.

Sending this bill to a select committee allows a debate to occur. We are not afraid of that, but I urge the House to consider the merit of building a nation founded on the principles of the Treaty, not on empty promises. The bill should go to a select committee, and no further.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): I move that the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Sorry—does the member realise he has a speech in reply?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Thank you. I apologise for being presumptuous. I cannot get over the glowing attributes and support that New Zealand First members have found ourselves receiving. I was moving ahead of myself, and I apologise for that.

It does sadden me a little bit that when changes are suggested like taking out the words “the principles” from legislation, it is interpreted as New Zealand First—or in particular myself—wanting to take out the provisions relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. That is not the case. I said that several times throughout my earlier speech, and I say it again. We are not here to take the Treaty of Waitangi out of legislation; it is the words “the principles” that we want removed.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Kia ora, Madam Speaker; kua rongo au i te kōrero o te mema nei. I tēnei wiki, te wiki o te reo Māori, e tika ana kia whakahua i ngā ingoa Māori i runga i te tika. Arā—

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have heard this member’s address. During this week, the week for the Māori language, Māori names should be pronounced correctly. Indeed—]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Points of order should be succinct. Have you finished?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member will be seated when I am on my feet. Te Ururoa Flavell, had you finished?

Te Ururoa Flavell: I te tatari au ki te tangata nei.

[I was waiting for the interpreter.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member paused and I was asking him whether he had finished. We will have the interpretation, thank you.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

Te Ururoa Flavell: He īnoi—

[A request—]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I am dealing with this point of order. Are you saying that the interpretation—

Te Ururoa Flavell: No, no, kei te pai. He īnoi kia kī “Waitangi”, kaua ko te “Waitangi”. Āe.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[No, no it is fine. I make a request that it be pronounced “Waitangi” (with the second “a” sounded like the “u” in cup); and not “Waitangi” (with the second “a” sounded like the “a” in man). OK.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I warn the member that that was not a point of order. He should not have interrupted the member’s speech. [Interruption] Mr Henare, I am ruling on a point of order; I am speaking. I warn the member. I am dealing with the point of order. There will be silence during points of order—that includes you, Mr Hide.

Rodney Hide: What have I done?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I was ruling on a point of order. Members know very well there will be silence while I rule on points of order. That was not a point of order. The member should not have interrupted the member’s speech.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Do you want to make another point of order? It had better be a different point of order, because that was not a point of order.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Ā, kia ora rā. I roto i te pukapuka nei kei te kī mēnā ka mau ā-hara nei te kōrero a tētahi, e taea ana te whakaputa i te aroaro i mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. Koi nei tāku e whai nei.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Thank you kindly. It states in this book that if a member says something that offends another member, the offended member can bring up the matter before the House of Parliament. This is what I was following up.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That was not a point of order. The member cannot correct another member’s speech like that.

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that the Standing Orders stated that if a member in the House offended another member by what he or she said, that was in fact a breach of the Standing Orders. I think Te Ururoa Flavell has rightfully raised a point of order about offensive mispronunciation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member did not raise a point of order about taking offence.

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, the member did not raise a point of order about taking offence.

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The fact is that he raised the issue of offensive mispronunciation, which often happens in this House. That is the reason why he raised the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, that is not a point of order. The member did not raise it as taking offence.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Madam Speaker—

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the point of order, and it is disorderly to contest the ruling. I have ruled on it.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Excuse me, Madam Assistant Speaker. Just to help us at this point in time, the difficulty has been, perhaps, in portraying the kōrero to the translator. What Mrs Turia has raised is the intent of the point of order, which was to draw to the attention of the House, and of the member, that in this week of Māori language we would appreciate the effort to pronounce words in an appropriate way. At the point in time when I raised the matter, it was a matter on which I had taken offence—thus I raised the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That was not certainly clear the first time.

Hon Brian Donnelly: I want to be helpful here. The issue is that members can take offence at what has been said. I do not believe that members can take offence at how something has been said, because there are some members in this House whose English, in fact, offends many people in the way it is produced. We would be forever taking points of order about other members if we could do that about the manner in which something had been said. The key issue is whether somebody has attempted to pronounce the language in an appropriate form. I think that a reasonable attempt was made by the member Doug Woolerton. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated; I will rule on the point of order. The member has spoken to the point of order and I agree with him—it concerns “how”. I agree with the member that we will get ourselves into a lot of difficulties if that is taken literally.

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

Tariana Turia: Well, it is a clarification. I would like to refer the Assistant Speaker to the time when Rodney Hide pronounced Elmar Toime’s name incorrectly and that was drawn to the attention of the Speaker of the House at the time, Jonathan Hunt. So if we Māori people are to continue to allow the mispronunciation of our language, then I think that it is a pretty sad day for this House—because that is offensive.

Lindsay Tisch: Maybe I can assist. If the member feels that Mr Woolerton made an offensive remark by not using a proper Māori interpretation or pronunciation, and if he feels that that is an offence, then under Standing Order 115 he can ask for an apology. So the question is whether the member has taken offence at what Mr Woolerton has said. If he has, then there is a remedy. If he has not, then there is no case to answer, because—as has been said, and from what I could hear from where I was sitting—there was actually no offence taken other than at the mispronunciation of a word. So, Madam Assistant Speaker, I suggest you ask whether Mr Flavell was offended by a misinterpretation or mispronunciation of a word.

Rodney Hide: I just refer to the point that Tariana Turia made, and she is quite right. That was at question time. It seems to me that if a Labour MP raises a point of order in this House, it receives a very favourable hearing, but when members on this side of the House raise a point of order, it is shouted down. I distinctly remember that at one question time about 10 or 15 minutes were spent on my mispronunciation of—I am too scared to say it—the name of the gentleman who used to run New Zealand Post, and Labour MPs took points of order and were ruled on very favourably. My mispronunciation was considered to be highly offensive, because it was me saying it and Labour MPs complaining about it. Here we have Māori Language Week and an Opposition MP is taking offence—

Hon Judith Tizard: Ha, ha—try his name!

Rodney Hide: You see, they can even shout out during points of order and get away with it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): There will be silence during points of order.

Rodney Hide: Well, it should not just be recorded; Judith Tizard should be sent out—because if I were doing it I would be.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member’s point of order certainly went on far too long, and much of it was not a point of order. Did Nandor Tanczos still want to speak to the point of order?

Rodney Hide: Madam Assistant Speaker, I had not finished, and if you are going to allow Ministers from the Government side to interject, is that a new ruling? The point I am making is that there seems to be two rules in this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows he cannot assert that. The member will be seated.

Rodney Hide: But I have not finished. Just because Judith Tizard interrupted me, it does not mean I have to stop.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): It does mean you have to stop, because I have heard the point of order and ruled that the member has to present the point of order in a succinct way.

Rodney Hide: Well, let me summarise in a succinct way, because it will affect your ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. I have heard the point of order.

Rodney Hide: You’re going to get another one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to draw your attention to perhaps another dimension on this issue. It relates to the Speakers’ rulings on pages 50, 51, and 52 of Speakers’ Rulings. Speaker’s ruling 50/6 states: “The Speaker will interpose immediately when, in the Speaker’s judgment, the word used is offensive; … a member may rise and test the matter …”, Speaker’s ruling 51/7 states: “An expression or a word that may be regarded as acceptable parliamentary language in one context may not be acceptable in another context.”, and Speaker’s ruling 52/1 states: “The key element in judging whether a word is appropriate, is whether it will bring disorder. The inflection, the gesture or the menace with which a word is said, can also bring disorder.” It seems to me that if there is a constant habit among members of mispronouncing Māori words, then that may well be an issue that brings disorder if Māori members of the House in particular, and perhaps other members, are offended by it. So it seems to me that the application of those Speakers’ rulings may well apply.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That interpretation could be taken but the point Mr Donnelly made concerned the “how”. If we were to have that, there would be extensive points of order that in themselves could bring disorder. Mr Tisch spoke to the point of whether a member had indicated he or she had taken offence at the pronunciation of a word—and I am sure that the member did not imply any offence, at all. I would ask Mr Woolerton to move on and to make clear what he was saying.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Absolutely—thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I would like to make it clear—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will hear from just Mr Woolerton. Would the member please continue.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I would like to make it clear—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Now we will hear the point of order. Mr Hide, I have finished with your point of order previously.

Rodney Hide: You have not heard this one. During the points of order that were being taken, you growled at me, Madam Assistant Speaker, for talking to Mr Tau Henare and then to Tariana Turia through the point of order while you were speaking. But they were sitting beside me. Is it the ruling now that members cannot speak to a person sitting beside them during a point of order? Is that the new standard, because my understanding—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. The reason I called out to Mr Hide was that I was giving a ruling on a point of order—which is when he spoke—after I had already warned the other member.

Rodney Hide: But—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, the member will not continue. I have dealt with that point of order.

Rodney Hide: Well, you haven’t.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will just warn the member. His bill is coming up; I do not want to send him out. I just ask him to show some respect to the House.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think this can be brought to a conclusion just by asking the member whether he took offence. If he took offence, then I am sure Mr Woolerton will apologise for that, and we can move on. It is very clear under Standing Orders 115 and 116, which I mentioned before, that the question you should ask of Mr Flavell, Madam Assistant Speaker, is whether he took offence. If the answer is yes, then I suggest you ask Mr Woolerton to apologise so we can move on. If he did not take offence, then there is no issue and we should move on.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Thank you, Mr Tisch. I have already asked the member that and, certainly, he has indicated that he did take offence. I have dealt with that, as I said to Mr Woolerton. Mr Woolerton was just in the process of standing up to continue his speech and indicate how he saw the matter.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Indeed I was. I was just going to say I am sorry if anybody took offence at my pronunciation. I apologise for that. In fact, very often people say I do not even pronounce my own name properly, and often people think I am of Australian extraction. Unfortunately I do not pronounce some words properly but, as my colleague Brian Donnelly said, if Te Ururoa Flavell allowed us to use his nickname “Jimbo”, I might be much better off.

But I was in the process—I have almost forgotten now—of saying that it is unfortunate if every time we seek to make a small change to anything around the Treaty, either we are accused of being racist or our intentions are misinterpreted. It saddens me that that is the case, because what we have been accused of is certainly not our intention in this bill. The intention in this bill is to make things clearer—

Hon Maurice Williamson: This member should have been a Minister.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Absolutely! The intention is to make things clearer where the law mentions the Treaty of Waitangi, and to give clarity to the law. I am in no way offended when Mr Finlayson of the National Party says that the bill in my name needs a bit of tidying up. He has undertaken—

Hon Tau Henare: Needs a bit! You need to rewrite it!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I am pleased that Mr Finlayson is a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, because the task would be way, way beyond the capabilities of Mr Tau Henare if we were unfortunate enough to have him in that select committee. I have total confidence that Mr Finlayson will be able to tidy up the bill in the manner he has suggested. I do not take offence at that. I take that as constructive criticism, which I am sure is the way it was meant.

It is good to see the support for my bill in the House. I look forward to the debate on it in the select committee, and I want to repeat, for about the fourth time, that it is not the intention of this bill or of New Zealand First to do away with the clauses of the Treaty of Waitangi. We just want to get rid of one word: “principles”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 111

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill

First Reading

RODNEY HIDE (ACT—Epsom): I move, That the Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This issue will not go away, and it is not something that Parliament can vote away. Rates throughout New Zealand are causing a great deal of heartache, hardship, and distress. In Auckland, residential rates are set to rise this year by 13.8 percent. No one is getting a salary rise of 13.8 percent, but people have to find an extra 13.8 percent for their rates.

In the last 3 years Wellington City Council rates have increased by 20.5 percent, Christchurch City Council rates by 19.4 percent, and Hamilton City Council rates by 15.2 percent. The average increase in rates across the country is 7 percent per year. That sort of increase would make the Sheriff of Nottingham blush if he were taking that money from the poor peasants among the people. Yet we sit idly by while local government is doing that to the citizens of New Zealand.

Parliament cannot duck responsibility for that, because it is this Parliament that has given the power to local government, to the councils, to set those rates. We cannot sit back in Parliament and say that it is an issue for local government; it is an issue for this Parliament. Every member of Parliament knows what an issue it is, because we all have constituents coming to see us who are on fixed incomes and struggling to pay their rate demands.

Hon Brian Donnelly: In Epsom.

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Brian Donnelly, whose party does not have any electorate seats—and because New Zealand First did not look after Tauranga and the poor ratepayers there it lost that seat to the venerable Mr Bob Clarkson—calls out: “In Epsom.” Absolutely in Epsom! People who are retired on fixed incomes are getting hit hard by rate demands and are struggling. I know that might be a surprise to Mr Donnelly and New Zealand First, but it is a fact. People are struggling. The member shakes his head to say it is not possible. Well, I think New Zealand First members should get out amongst the people a bit more and start listening to what people are saying.

Maryan Street: It’s your defence of them, Rodney, that’s making people shake their heads.

RODNEY HIDE: Sorry?

Maryan Street: It’s your defence of people that’s making us shake our heads. And this is a surprise!

RODNEY HIDE: Who is this member? I have never heard a contribution quite like it. It is true, contrary to what New Zealand First members might be asserting, that there are people in every electorate in this country who are struggling. I was rung up last week by a Roger Beauchamp. He has been hit. He is a pensioner who has lived in his house since 1960—it is a family home. This story is repeated up and down New Zealand. He has been hit with a rates demand of $2,800. I say to Mr Donnelly that it is true that Mr Beauchamp does not live in Epsom, but he is getting hit with rates of $2,800 and he cannot afford it. Mr Beauchamp asked me what he gets from the Porirua City Council that is worth $2,800 in a year. The answer is not much. So he went to the council and said: “I can’t afford this.” Do members know what he was told by the caring people in local government, which is supported by the Labour Party and now New Zealand First? He was told to sell his House if he could not afford his rates.

Even the Sheriff of Nottingham did not do that to the peasants. But this Labour Government, in association with New Zealand First, expects pensioners to have to sell their houses to pump up local government so it can have its flash offices and build its monuments while the poor people of New Zealand lose their family homes.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is this bill going to reduce his rates?

RODNEY HIDE: No, it is not, but I will tell the member what it will do. It will stop them going up at more than plus 2 percent inflation a year, and that has to be a good start. Why are New Zealand First members going around supporting rates increases of 10 percent and 20 percent a year—which New Zealand First’s own supporters cannot afford and are complaining about to them—and saying: “We don’t care.”? Why does New Zealand First not care? Because it has the baubles of office.

Members should think about the inequity of this situation—they can look it up. Helen Clark’s rates as Prime Minister are $1,600 for the year. The rates of this poor pensioner in Porirua City are $2,800. Where is the equity and fairness in that situation, which this Labour Government with New Zealand First is defending?

Mark Blumsky: She doesn’t pay rates for the one she lives in up in Thorndon, either.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, I do not know. I am sure that Taito Phillip Field pays enough rates for half the country when one adds up all the houses he has. But that has to be iniquitous.

I heard of a farmer who has a farm amongst the vineyards. His rates bill is $50,000 in a year. The answer is not more subsidies from taxpayers; the answer is in getting local government spending under control, because we see the waste and excess of local government every which way we look. When one sees what some of these city councils are up to one could say it even makes central government look quite reasonable in how it wastes its money.

Members should understand that cities like Sydney and London have caps on how much they can increase their rates by in a year. The Hutt City Council has a strategy to raise rates by no more than half a percent above inflation. I remind the House how generous my bill is. It is saying that councils can put up rates in any year by inflation plus 2 percent. Even that is outrageous, but I thought I would be generous, because I would get the big spenders in New Zealand First—the big Government defenders—and the Labour Party to say that 2 percent plus inflation is quite reasonable. But, oh no, they are happy to vote for the rates of the poor people of New Zealand to go up by 14 percent or so a year.

I believe there is a mistake in my bill, and it is this. In order to get the support of the House, the bill states that if a council wants to go higher than 4 percent plus inflation over 3 years, or 2 percent plus inflation in a year, it can go to the Minister of Local Government and get an exemption after having to put a case publicly. I believe that is a mistake. I included that provision because I thought it would be a cost-effective way of managing rates increases, but I believe we should make it so that councils can increase their rates above that amount only by having a referendum of the ratepayers. It should be the ratepayers who get to decide whether their rates are to go up faster. If the local government has a good reason for increasing rates, then I am sure the people will go along with it. So I believe we can fix that mistake in the select committee and actually give the power to the people—the ratepayers.

Again, I ask New Zealand First members what they have against ratepayers in New Zealand that they will not let them have that say. I again ask New Zealand First members, having heard them trumpet their concerns about rates and about people on fixed incomes, why we do not just have the debate. Why is this Parliament so scared to debate the issue of rates and how they are controlled?

How will we have that debate? At the appropriate time I will be moving that this bill go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That is the appropriate committee for this bill. Why? Because every party is represented on that committee. Under Mr Shane Jones’ admirable chairmanship, it is supposedly the most powerful committee in this Parliament. So that is where I will move that this bill goes to be considered, so that every party will get to have a say and some input, and so the people of New Zealand will be able to come to Parliament and explain their situation with regard to their rates, the demands they are having, and the fact that they are losing their houses and homes that they have lived in for their entire lives. I look to New Zealand First and ask why its members would deny New Zealanders the opportunity to make that contribution.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs): I rise to oppose the first reading of the Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill. This recycled bill is identical to the one that the previous Parliament decided should not be read a first time, back in 2004. I see no reason today that would make this bill any more worthy of parliamentary time than it was then.

The bill purports to help ratepayers. It will do no such thing. The author of the bill has forgotten or ignored a lot of things. First, rates are not the only funding source for local government. One of the first consequences of the enactment of this bill would almost certainly be increasing levels of user-pays for community facilities like libraries, swimming pools, and sports grounds. Who among us wants to discourage people from reading with their children because it costs too much to take out a book? Who wants to discourage physical exercise? This bill will do precisely that.

Second, the bill controls the total level of rates levied by the local authority, yet the average rates increase is only one of the factors that determines the level of rates paid by an individual ratepayer. Also relevant are movements in property values or a shift in the incidence of rating from one sector to another. A highly desirable water view property may increase in value more than neighbouring properties with no view, which means the ratepayer may well pay more in rates than last year’s rates, plus the consumer price index.

Supporters of the bill are apparently labouring under the illusion that the bill will promote the accountability of local government to its communities. It will not. In fact, it would reduce the strong system of accountability and transparency that the Local Government Act 2002 has established. Local authorities have just completed their first full, long-term council community plans. These plans set out what services the council will provide—the quality and the cost. Where communities have been opposed to the proposals in these plans, they have had far more opportunity to make their views known than ever before.

Mr Hide’s old, recycled bill will ride roughshod over this process by imposing an externally mandated cap. That will mean that if a local community wants its council to do something, and it requires the raising of rates beyond inflation plus 2 percent, the council will be able to do so if—and only if—the Minister of Local Government agrees. In short, any future Minister who does not believe in local people setting the priorities and magnitude of their council’s work and rating system, or who sees a potential political gain, will be given the power to overrule the local process created under the 2002 legislation. Our communities deserve better than to be a political football.

I draw the attention of the House to the report of the Joint Central Government / Local Authority Funding Project Team published late in August. It concluded that there is a degree of catch-up needed in infrastructure, roads, water supply, sewerage, and stormwater disposal schemes—not frills, but the infrastructure a growing economy needs. No one wants to see our roading network clog up, to have people drink substandard water, or to see poorly treated sewage tipped into our waterways. One of the root causes of this infrastructural deficit is the very kind of Luddite thinking that drives this bill, that rates must not increase faster than the rate of inflation. For this reason, essential maintenance was deferred, projects were put off, and renewal work went undone because depreciation was not funded—or not sufficiently funded—let alone adequate provision made for what was often highly desirable or even essential qualitative service facility developments.

This bill overlooks the fact that New Zealanders as a society expect higher environmental standards than they did 10 years ago. Upgrades and clean-ups are in progress all around the country. This ill-considered, regressive bill would choke this activity. Our scenic lakes would remain choked with agricultural nutrients, waterways would be polluted with motorway run-off, and sewerage and stormwater systems in some provincial centres would mingle in a heavy storm. Infrastructural catch-up in meeting society’s aspirations of improved environmental standards and community services all comes at a cost that is often greater than the inflation plus 2 percent that this bill would allow.

For many communities, the choice is not between more or less, it is between more now and even more later. Like us, the local councillors’ ultimate accountability rests with the voters at the ballot box. A local council that puts rates up without demonstrating value for money and without winning the support of its constituents is likely to find itself involuntarily retired.

So the Government will not be supporting the bill. Of course, the Government is concerned about the impact that rising rates have on those ratepayers on low or fixed incomes. That is why the 2005 Budget signalled the Government’s intention to make significant changes to the qualifying thresholds and level of assistance available under the rates rebate scheme. Those changes took effect on 1 July and up to 300,000 lower income New Zealanders are now likely to be eligible for a rates rebate of up to $500. Those members genuinely concerned for those on low or fixed incomes would do well to remember that this initiative alone is a far better avenue for addressing these concerns than this ideological, ill-thought-out bill. So we do not support the bill; it should not go past the first reading.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): Ratepayers across this country are hurting, newly-weds in their first homes are hurting, businesses across this country are hurting, and elderly people—particularly those on fixed incomes—are hurting. The reason why they are hurting is that they are being loaded with rates charges that they cannot meet. Across this nation, there is a growing wave of ratepayer revolt that will reach the size of a tsunami and strike at every corner of this nation, and the Government needs to know that.

Let us look at what is happening in local government. There are three areas that drive costs. One is infrastructure. No one argues against the need for us to have infrastructural development; water, sewerage, and roading are all things we expect in our communities and are prepared to pay for. The second cost driver is inflation. In local government, for example, the increased price of petrol has added huge costs—up to 50 percent in some cases—to some of the costs of local government in relation to roading. But the third area that adds to the problem—the unnecessary addition to the problem—is the imposition of responsibility-shifting from central to local government.

That rack can be pointed directly at Helen Clark’s Labour-led Government, of which New Zealand First is a part. Those members should know and recognise that, in the time they have been Government, 67 pieces of legislation have shifted costs and responsibility from central to local government. The cost of that to ratepayers is huge. Let us remember that this Government puts its hands in one pocket of a ratepayer, takes taxes out, and puts them into its bank, while at the same time it expects local government to put its hands in the ratepayer’s other pocket and pull the money out of that, as well. So a ratepayer pays twice for the shift of responsibility.

Hon Member: They’re double-dipping.

JOHN CARTER: Absolutely, and the problem is that it is reaching the stage where ratepayers cannot afford it.

We have heard about some of the costs tonight. Let me give this House one or two other examples that are interesting. In one local authority, the cost imposition of the Building Act on ratepayers is $750,000 per annum. That is just to meet the cost imposition regarding buildings. The ratepayers will also have to meet in excess of $1.2 million for the earthquake legislation. There is absolutely no way of recovering that, other than by charging rates. Dog control costs $220,000 and hazardous substances $160,000, etc. The costs go on and on.

It is interesting to note that recently one local government leader said that every time there is a law change that shifts a responsibility from central to local government, it costs his council $50,000 because of the consultation, the legal advice, the procedural changes, and the reporting that it requires. If that is extrapolated out across the country, we find each time there is a law change in local government, it costs ratepayers in excess of $4 million just for one change. Members can figure out the cost of that when it is spread over 67 pieces of legislation.

It is fair to say that when National was in Government, we did some responsibility-shifting, but not at the level that is being done now and certainly not at the cost to the ratepayers that is happening now. We need to have the opportunity of a thorough select committee investigation into local government rating. We need to look at why the costs are being put on local government, and this bill will give us the opportunity to have that inquiry. This House should support the referral of this bill to a select committee after its first reading, to allow such an inquiry to happen. The ratepayers of this nation are asking for it. Very shortly, they will stop asking for an inquiry and start to demand it. At that stage, this Parliament will have no option but to listen. Why do we not listen now and support this bill?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): The previous speaker got one thing right and one thing wrong. The thing he got wrong was that New Zealand First is part of this Government. I tell him that I am not part of this Government. But everything else he said was correct, and we support him. We would support this bill going to a select committee if, in fact, it allowed debate on the issue of rates. It does not do that, and that is the problem.

New Zealand First has for some time been concerned about local body rates, and those concerns were reflected in its manifesto for the 2005 election. I will read out some of those policies: “New Zealand First will … explore options to reduce the rates encumbrance on seniors with a fixed income; … review the legislative burden that central government has placed on local government”—as the previous speaker talked about—“and the impact of this on ratepayers …;” and “reduce the layers of bureaucracy which have increasingly been superimposed onto local government”. Those are just some of the very significant issues around local body charges.

I happen to live in a place called Ngunguru on the beautiful east coast of Northland. Until the last couple of decades, Ngunguru was basically a seaside holiday spot joined to Whangarei by a dusty, winding road. Most of the dwellings were humble baches; some still are. But in the last quarter of a century, the place has been transformed. Property values have risen sharply and people who had modest homes are now asset millionaires. The trouble is that those same people are often reliant solely on superannuation. Rates are crippling many of those people and, as Rodney Hide explained, many of them are being driven to have to sell their homes.

The question is, does this bill address that problem? The answer is no, it does not address it. This bill limits the total level of rates, not the individual level. So if one part of a council’s region has value increases and another has decreases, then an individual’s rates could climb far higher than the limits set in this bill. Moreover, if a council’s area has significant growth—say, by 10 percent more properties over 3 years; and we think in terms of the growth in places like Tauranga—then it will not have the capacity to raise revenue for the additional costs, because it is limited down to the increase in the consumer price index plus 4 percent over the 3 years.

The second issue is Government-imposed costs. Will this bill rectify what our local regional council chairperson has referred to as incremental cost creep? The answer is no, the bill will not rectify it—very simply because of what Rodney Hide has already admitted. The bill allows for the Minister of Local Government to provide dispensation to go above the limits imposed by this sorry piece of legislation. Are we to believe that central government, having imposed additional costs on local government, will refuse dispensation to councils that ask it to accommodate those imposed costs? Of course not! Councils would push increases to the level that is allowed in this bill, add central government costs on top of that, and then go to the Minister and ask for a dispensation. That is exactly what has happened in New South Wales. I want to make the point that much of the additional bureaucracy within local government stems from the need to comply with central government directions. So every additional bureaucrat will be factored in as arising from central government’s compliance impositions, and will be added to the case for dispensation.

There is another important consideration. What happens when a local body seriously under-invests in infrastructural development over a considerable period of time? When that body is finally forced by circumstances to face reality—presumably with newly elected members, elected by people who have themselves seen there is a shortfall—then even if those people ask for increased expenditure on neglected infrastructure, the council will not be able to do it. The bill is nonsensical, and those who believe that sending it through to a select committee will enable an in-depth public analysis of the whole issue of local body charges are fooling themselves. Submissions will be confined to the very restricted concepts of the bill.

New Zealand First is calling for a well-resourced independent commission of inquiry, of the magnitude of the McLeod commission of inquiry into taxation, at central government level—and we will achieve it, unlike this bill, which will not be passed all the way through the House. Even if the bill passes its first reading tonight, I will make a bet—and I will lay money on this—that at a later stage in its process National will vote against it, because it knows that this bill is not workable in the real world. We believe that the only way the myriad of complexities surrounding the issue of rates will be unravelled in a truly independent fashion and the voice of the people will be allowed to be heard across the full range of issues—rather than playing silly political games that raise false hopes and have no possibility of satisfactory outcomes—will, in fact, be to have a fully fledged commission of inquiry into all the issues in terms of local body charges. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party is opposing the Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill. We have received a large number of letters and emails about it and have given the issue very serious thought, because the matters raised by members of the community have been really serious. We understand that rates are increasing massively in some places. We know of areas where rates have increased by 300 percent and of cases where properties worth $22,000 are being rated as if they were worth $800,000. We certainly know, and have known for a very long time, that Māori have been increasingly forced off their land as a result of rates increases that make it simply impossible for them to continue living in their papakāinga areas. They are being rated highly and the increases are happening very quickly.

But we think we have to be very, very careful if we are to restrict the power of local government to raise the income it needs to manage the local infrastructure it is fundamentally responsible for managing. With a lower rating base, many crucial infrastructural projects, such as public transport, water, and waste management simply would not be affordable. And if that were to happen, the next step would be local government coming to central government to ask for more money to provide for those services, thereby driving up the general tax demand by central government. It is not a mechanism for finding the solution to the problems.

One really important issue for the Green Party is that the bill—and I think to some extent, though not entirely, the campaign behind it—is a diversion from the real causes of increasing land prices and the subsequent rates rises. I think if the ACT party were not so ideologically bound, as it is, to the whole mantra of economic growth above all else, its members might consider dealing with some of these underlying causes. One of those significant causes, a few steps back from local government, is the uncontrolled increase in foreign investment in land in this country, built on the relentless pursuit of unsustainable economic growth, which is helping to drive up land prices, particularly in coastal land and in Māori land. It is not even productive job-creating investment, it is just investment in purchase of land.

In 2004 the Overseas Investment Commission approved the sale of nearly 200,000 hectares of rural land to foreign investors. Foreign-owned land now covers more than one million hectares of New Zealand. Even the Financial Stability Report of May 2006 recognised that significant proportions of foreign capital are being invested and used for the banking sector in residential mortgage lending. So there are steps behind the rates rises that are helping to cause those increases and we need to be able to deal with those background issues rather than try to put band-aids on the problem. The fact is that there is no monitoring of this investment in New Zealand, nor any real monitoring of its impacts on New Zealand communities, such as those impacted by the issues that the ACT party is trying to resolve.

I recently went to a showing of a New Zealand - made film in Māhia called The Last Resort, and it is currently on at the film festival. It describes these processes and the background to them in great detail. It uses the example of the sale of the Blue Bay camp ground in Ōpoutama in Māhia. The council sold that camp ground—it was 60 years old—to the lessee who then sold it on to a developer. The developer has turned it into 44 sections worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each. The local hapū held an occupation of the adjoining reserve to try to raise consciousness about the impacts of councils doing this with community-owned land in order to help drive up the rate base. This increases the rates for all the houses around the area that are not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and are owned by people who have been living there for generations.

These are significant issues for those people. I understand that ACT is trying to find a solution to these issues, but the fact is that unless we curb unsustainable growth that then leads to increased land prices, and therefore to the economic exclusion of ordinary New Zealanders, as we are seeing. We simply will not be able to stop the subsequent effects of that exclusion—rates rises and councils taking advantage of increased land valuations being one of those effects.

This bill distorts and distracts us from the real issues behind why these things are happening for local ratepayers, and we consider that we simply cannot support a bill that really only provides a band-aid approach and does not deal with the real issues. We would welcome the support of ACT and other members of this House to deal with those background issues if they are prepared to set aside their absolute adherence to unsustainable economic growth as the only option for this country, because that is in large part the problem. Kia ora.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): E tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i ērā kaupapa ka taea e te iwi kia kitea i ngā mahi e mahi ana, e whakapono anō hoki te tangata, nāna nei ngā mahi. Ko tā te pire nei, he whakarerekē i Te Ture ā-Rohe 2002. Ko tāna hei whakapōtae kia kore e rahi ake ngā reiti kua tohungia e ngā kaunihera ā-rohe ki runga i te hunga e noho ana ki reira. Ko te tāhuhu kōrero mō ngā taake whenua ki a ngāi Māori kei a ia ōna piki me ōna heke, kia pēnei, kia pērā. I tērā atu rau tau, i kitea i ngā mahi nanakia a te tari taake, kia whakarahi ake te wāriu o te whenua Māori ki te whenua Pākehā, ā, i te kore utu i ngā reiti, ka tāhae te kāwana i aua whenua. Anei anō. i tērā rau tau i whakaitihia te wāriu o ngā whenua Māori i te rohe pōtae o Tainui kia taea a tauiwi te hoko i aua whenua. E mea ana a tauiwi, ko te take o tēnei tino iti o te wāriu, te kore wāriu anō hoki i te mea, he tini rawa ngā tāngata nā rātou te whenua. Ko ēnei ngā mahi tūkino a ngā ture wāriu whenua, ka nui te whakamā.

He rahi tonu ngā whenua Māori, horekau he tangata e noho ana ki reira, a, kāhore te whenua i mahia. Hanga pakeke ana te utu reiti mō ngā tāngata nā rātou ēnei whenua. Ko ētahi he rawakore, ko ētahi anō e kore hiahia kia whakamahia te whenua kia riro rawa rātou. Ko ngā take e pēnei ana, arā, ko te āhua o ngā tāngata nā rātou te whenua; ko te āhua o te whenua ehara i te whenua pai kia whakamahia, kia noho rānei te tangata, me te mea anō ko te whenua he whenua taratahi.

Kei Te Ture Kāwanatanga ā-Rohe 2002 he wāhanga hei tautoko i te Māori kia mahi i wā rātou mahi tawhito i aua whenua. Kia taea hoki e ngā tāngata whenua te whakahaere i ētahi mahi rawa i raro i te mōhioranga, kei reira anō he wāhi tapu.

Ko tētahi wāhanga o Te Ture Reiti i whakaritea kia ōrite te āhua o te whenua Māori, ki wērā atu o ngā whenua whānui. Engari, kua kite tātou i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei, kua piki haere ngā reiti o ngā whenua Māori, tata atu ki te whā rau te rere ki tērā o ngā whenua whānui a wētahi o ngā kaunihera. Ko te tikanga, mā te reiti ka ngaro anō hoki te tangata i ōna whenua. Koia nei te take, kāhore te Pāti Māori i tautoko i te “pūtea kotahi te utu”, mō ngā mahi nunui i raro i Te Pire Whakarerekē i te Ture Kāwanatanga ā-Rohe i te mea, he momo anō tērā kia whakarahi ake atu ngā reiti.

E tika ana kia wānangahia i tēnei kaupapa i tēnei rā i te mea, e wānangahia anō hoki e mātou ngā kōrero mō Te Tiriti O Waitangi i tēnei rā. Ko tā Pita Rikys: “Ko te tino whakaaro kia riro e te Māori i tōna mana i raro i te mana o te Tiriti, ā, kia tōtika tonu ngā tikanga me ngā kaupapa ka hangaia kia pono te mahi i muri mai o tērā.” Ko te whakapono a te Pāti Māori, kia ōrite te mana o te mana whenua ki te mana o ngā kaunihera ā-rohe i ngā wā e wānangahia ana kia reiti, kāhore rānei te whenua Māori. E whakapono ana mātou, mā te Māori, mā te iwi whānui hoki e whakaritea: ko te mahi whakapōtae reiti te ara tōtika; me whakatū tikanga hōu; me ū rānei ki ngā tikanga utu reiti o ēnei rā. Ko ēnei ngā tino kaupapa kia whakaarohia e te Māori: ko tōna whakapapa ki te whenua; me te whakaaro kia ū, kia mahitahi hoki i te whenua rā.

Ko tā mātou wawata mō te pire nei, kia puta mai te māramatanga, kia mārama te kite i ngā mahi e mahingia ana, kia kaua te tangata e kī, ehara nāna, nā tētahi atu, ā, kia hangaia he āhuatanga hei kī, ko te whenua, ko tātou. Me kaua tātou e wareware i te tūturutanga o te whenua ki te ao Māori. I te Kooti i te tau 1987, e mea ana Te Kaunihera Māori o Niu Tīreni i tona tautohe ki te Rōia Nui o te Kāwanatanga me Wētahi Atu: “Nā te whenua ka mōhio mātou ko wai mātou, i ahu mai mātou i hea, e haere ana mātou ki hea. He whakaaturanga kia mōhio ai te ao, he iwi mātou mai rāno, he tangata whenua o tēnei whenua, ā, he tohu anō i ngā kaupapa ā-iwi, whanaungatanga hoki. Ko te whenua te tūrangawaewae. Tērā te tohu o te wakapapa, te honohono ki ngā tūpuna kua ngaro atu, ngā rēanga kei te haere mai. He tohu tūturu mō ake tonu atu, mēnā he whenua, he Māori anō hoki.”

Anei ngā kaupapa e kawe nei e mātou i tēnei rā, ā, i ngā pire katoa kei roto i tēnei Whare. E tautoko ana mātou i te pire nei i runga i te whakapono, kia whai mana ēnei ture, kia whakaritea he kaupapa, kia taea e mātou te noho ki ō mātou whenua, hei tiaki i te whenua, ka taea te kōrero, āe mārika, ko mātou te tangata whenua. Kia ora tātou katoa.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[The Māori Party supports initiatives where accountability and transparency are important. The bill amends the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 by capping the level of rates increases that local authorities may impose on residents. It stops local authorities from setting excessive increases. For tangata whenua, the history of rating in Aotearoa has been variable and inconsistent. In the last century, the property tax department was found to be valuing Māori land well above the market rate, and those Māori who could not pay their rates promptly lost their lands. In another incident, in the last century, we learn that lands in the King Country were being valued low, in order to make it easier for Europeans to buy them. The argument was that the land was worth less, indeed worthless, because it was in multiple ownership. So manipulation of valuation legislation is a shameful part of our history.

Large tracts of Māori freehold land are unoccupied and unimproved. This land creates a significant rating burden on the Māori owners, who often do not have the means or, in some cases, the desire to make economic use of the land. Often this is due to the nature of the ownership, or because the land has some special significance that will make it undesirable to develop or reside on, or is isolated and marginal in quality.

The Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 supported the use of Māori land by the owners for traditional purposes. It was introduced also to make it easy for owners to develop the land for economic use. It took into account the presence of wāhi tapu that may affect the use of the land for other purposes.

One section of the Local Government (Rating) Act requires that Maori freehold land be liable for rates in the same manner as if it were general land. But what has happened in the last few years is that tangata whenua have experienced excessive rate increases of three to four times the inflation rate imposed by some councils. In essence, Māori are being rated off our own lands. That was why the Māori Party voted against lump-sum payments for capital projects in the Local Government Law Reform Bill, which was just another form of rating increase.

It is also timely to be considering this bill on this day, when the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is being debated. According to Pita Rikys, it was critical for Māori to get the power relationship right via a clear Treaty statement, and provision of effective mechanisms and structures. Mechanisms must provide real accountability, and the structures must allow for effective rangatiratanga. The Māori Party believes that mana whenua should have an equal say with local/regional authorities on all matters concerned with the rating or non-rating of Māori land. We also believe that both Māori and the wider public should have a say as to whether a rating cap is the best way to regulate and monitor rate increases, and whether the current method of assessing rates is the best one. There are real issues for Māori people’s relationship to the land and the practical circumstances of Māori land in joint ownership.

We look forward to this bill providing clarity, transparency, and accountability, in establishing the critical foundation that our land provides in our view of the world. We cannot underestimate the crucial importance of land in our world view. In the 1987 court case, New Zealand Māori Council and Latimer v Attorney-General and Others, the New Zealand Māori Council stated: “[Māori land] provides us with a sense of identity, belonging, and continuity. It is proof of our continued existence not only as a people, but as the tangata whenua of this country. It is proof of our tribal and kin group ties. Māori land represents tūrangawaewae. It is proof of our link with the ancestors of our past, and with the generations yet to come. It is an assurance that we shall forever exist as a people, for as long as the land shall last.”

These are the values we take into this bill, as we do with every other bill coming before the House. We will vote to support this bill, based on our belief that controls and consistency need to be in place so that we can stay on our land, care for our land, and be tangata whenua in the truest form. Thank you all.]

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.