TOC1

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week the House goes into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 13 March priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill, which is a 4-hour debate; the remaining stages of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill and the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2); and the first reading of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for the information, but may I say the worry would obviously have to continue for him that his Government is going to run out of work, with the announcement that it has only one first reading planned for the entire 4-week session when we get back. I am wondering whether he might indicate to the House how soon we will get to the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. We have speakers who have been waiting for some 9 years to add a contribution on that bill. We commend the Minister for his management of the House, if it means the bill will finally come before us.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): He, like me, and like the rest of the House’s old trout, will have to wait, probably indefinitely, for the passage of that particular legislation. The first reading I referred to is in the first week; I can assure the member there will be a range of other first readings to consider. There is also a very considerable amount of material before the select committees, which is due to come back to the House in the not very distant future. However, I am grateful to the member for his continued cooperation in the way the House now processes legislation—quite quickly and very effectively.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I seek leave to table a copy of the Government’s legislative programme, indicating there is very little coming out of select committees and that we will most likely be having to review the sitting hours for the year in order to avoid the Government looking very, very embarrassed, indeed.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Court Fines—Remission

1. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister for Courts: Is he satisfied with the number of fines being remitted by the courts; if so, why?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I have no control over the number of fines that are remitted by the courts. The decision to remit fines is made by members of the judiciary, who are best placed to make such decisions. Judges use the information they have in front of them at the time and base their decisions upon whether it is beneficial to impose an alternative sentence upon the offender before the court, or to continue to pursue the outstanding fines for their balance. I am confident that judges make the best decisions on the information available to them.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister satisfied that fines are proving to be an effective deterrent; if so, how does he reconcile that with the fact that more than 7,050 people have had multiple agglomerations of fines excused by the courts in the past 5 years?

Hon RICK BARKER: I do know that the courts have taken this matter very seriously. I can tell the member that although the number of fines being remitted in that period is quite large, the number of people who are being sentenced to prison as an alternative to that has grown quite considerably. In 2002-03, 140 people had imprisonment as an alternative sentence; in 2005-06, the number was 293. This shows a certain toughening of the courts’ attitude towards fines.

Martin Gallagher: Further to the Minister’s previous answer, can he outline what reports he has seen personally on the improved collection of fines?

Hon RICK BARKER: I have seen a report that states that the courts have collected $206.9 million in outstanding fines for the 2005-06 year. This is an increase of 82 percent on the 2001-02 figure of $113.4 million. The report goes on to state that the proportion of fines that were overdue in 2001-02 was a high 79 percent. This figure has been reduced to 54 percent in 2005-06. I have also seen a report that states that the courts have collected over $10 million in 2004, 2005, and 2006 from the confiscated car club. The court staff are doing a very good job in collecting fines and outstanding fines.

Simon Power: When will he just admit that recent figures show that 184,572 people owe fines that are over 5 years old—which confirms the fact that he is totally hopeless as the Minister for Courts?

Hon RICK BARKER: I would say that the problem for part of that lies entirely with the previous National Government and its incompetent management of this matter. It has come to my attention as the Minister for Courts that issuing authorities, such as local authorities and the police, very often have issued fines with no name attached to them or with no address. This makes it utterly impossible for the court staff to collect the fines. The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill now makes it very clear that issuing authorities will have to have a minimum subset of information that makes it possible to collect the fines. This is in part a large legacy issue from the incompetence of the previous National Government.

Ron Mark: How can the public have any confidence in a fines system when only half of the criminals who have had fine groupings pardoned have had an alternative sentence imposed, and why are these fines being imposed in the first place if there is no intention of enforcing the payment and only, it would seem, an intention for judges to pardon and excuse the non-payment of those fines?

Hon RICK BARKER: I draw the member’s attention to the figures I gave before, which showed that in the year 2005-06 the courts had collected $206 million in fines, as compared with $113 million in 2001-02. So it is a doubling of the amount. The other point I would draw to the member’s attention is—as I said earlier—that the number of sentences in lieu of outstanding fines has climbed from 140 to 293, and that the number of attachment orders being put on offenders has gone up dramatically, as well.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could help me, Madam Speaker. In my primary question, I asked the Minister about remitted fines, and in my subsequent supplementary questions, I have asked the Minister only about remitted fines—that is, fines that the judge has “pardoned”—and I have used that word. In all of the answers he has given thus far, he has made no comment about that precise issue, which is clearly stated in the primary question. Madam Speaker, I would ask you to ask him whether he could expand, or at least comment, on the number of fines that judges are pardoning.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question, but if he wanted to add anything more to it he may. No, he does not.

Simon Power: When will the Minister just admit that recent figures showing that eight people have a total of 2,494 separate outstanding fines between them confirms that he is utterly hopeless as the Minister for Courts?

Hon RICK BARKER: The answer to the question is simple. Courts do not impose fines themselves. Courts have fines forwarded to them by the issuing authorities—that is, the police or local territorial authorities—that have failed to collect them themselves. The court staff have increased the amount of money that is collected by fines—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but would the Minister please be seated. It is very difficult to hear with the chipping in. Members want Ministers to address the questions. When they are endeavouring to do so we should give them the courtesy of enabling them to be heard.

Hon RICK BARKER: I was making the point that the issuing authorities issue the fines, not the courts—that is, territorial authorities, Government agencies, and the police. That is who decides to issue fines. When those authorities cannot collect the fines themselves they hand them on to the courts. Every indicator shows that the courts are being more rigorous and are collecting more fines—

Hon Tony Ryall: Oh, rubbish!

Hon RICK BARKER: I can tell Mr Ryall that the figures show that clearly. Just to show members how effective the system is being, I can tell them that in 2001-02 there were 41,000 attachment orders on people’s pay; in 2005-06 there 203,208, which is a fivefold increase. We are collecting more money; less is outstanding.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In asking my question of the Minister I did not ask him who fined whom. I simply asked him what he was going to do about the eight people who, between them, owed $2,900-odd in separate fines. He has not addressed that specific issue.

Hon RICK BARKER: In relation to a number of people who have substantial amounts of fines outstanding, the courts have organised a small team to concentrate specifically on those people, as well as collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in fines from the general public.

Ron Mark: If the Minister expects the public to believe that the fines system is working and that pardoning multiple groupings of fines for individuals—in fact, for more than 117 people per month—is proving effective, how does he explain that there is someone out there who has had more than 10 groupings of fines excused by the courts in the past 5 years?

Hon RICK BARKER: The member is referring to a question he put down to me for written answer. He will be surprised, as I was, to find that the individual with the number between 10 and 20 is, in fact, “name unknown”. The court staff simply collated the number of fines for which there was no name on the fine but which the issuing authority had forwarded to the courts to collect. I think everybody would accept that it is impossible to collect a fine without a name of a person on it. Court staff should have identified that in a separate category. I found it frustrating to find this out 5 minutes before the House.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that 5,539 offenders have had two groups of fines remitted—that is, pardoned—between January 2002 and December 2006.

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

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that, in total, 7,054 people have had more than one grouping of fines pardoned by the courts.

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

Office of Treaty Settlements—Whenuakite Station

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Why did the Office of Treaty Settlements reject Landcorp’s offer of the land at Whenuakite Station?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Because it applies the criteria that it has consistently applied since the mid-1990s, when the relevant processes were put in place by that member’s Government.

Hon Bill English: Is this Landcorp farm now available for a Treaty settlement with Hauraki iwi, after the announcement the Government made yesterday?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Government is not yet in negotiation with Hauraki iwi. When it is, then the same process will be applied to the availability of land and other forms of redress as is always applied.

Hon Bill English: Does that mean that the Government is going to stick to its Crown policy, which is, according to the Minister, that Landcorp properties are generally not available for use in settlement; and, if it plans to stick to that policy, why did it make an announcement yesterday to give the impression that somehow it will make the property available to the claimants?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member is confusing two quite different things. One is that the Government’s announcement yesterday by another Minister, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, quite properly dealt with the general issue of disposal or retention of lands. As to the question of land disposal or land availability for Treaty settlements, the situation remains the same. Such land is always potentially available. It has generally not been the first preference of successive Ministers and Governments, because other easily available means of redress exist. However, as I have said to the member, the land still remains potentially available.

Hon Bill English: Was the Crown not showing bad faith in the settlement process when it made an announcement yesterday about a review of Landcorp’s sales process that focused on subdivision, public access, and heritage and had nothing to do with Treaty settlements, and made that announcement to give the impression to Hauraki iwi that this farm might be available for settlement, when in fact the Crown does not intend changing its policy at all?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member, clearly, is utterly confused. It is entirely appropriate that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises made an announcement about the Government’s wider policies as they relate to his portfolio. Equally, it is appropriate that I engaged with Hauraki iwi, even though we are not in formal negotiations yet. And I repeat for the member, who clearly did not hear it the first time, that the policy has always had such land available to it. That has not changed, because the land is available and always has been.

Hon Bill English: What confidence can anyone—any New Zealander, including any Treaty claimant—have in the Government’s Treaty settlement process, when a small group has occupied this land, precipitated a Government U-turn on its policy—

Hon Member: Led by a Tory candidate.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should not have to shout over interjections to have my question heard.

Madam SPEAKER: The member is quite right. I have noticed an increasing pattern from those members on either side of the House sitting near the Chair. There are loud individual interjections constantly when members are trying to ask a question. So would members please desist, otherwise they will be removed from the Chamber. Would the member please start his question again.

Hon Bill English: What confidence can any New Zealander or any Treaty claimant have in the Government’s process, when it does a U-turn in response to a bit of pressure from one of the claimants, announces a major review, and sets out to change the whole system?

Hon MARK BURTON: That simply is not the case. But if that member is suggesting that no Minister should ever listen to the submissions of New Zealanders, then I guess that marks out the difference between that member and this Government.

Hon Bill English: What responsibility does that Minister take for the growing Māori dissatisfaction with the slow pace and inflexibility of the Treaty settlement process; and does not his administration of it contradict the Government’s stated policy that it wants to speed up the process?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member’s assertions simply are not correct. The fact that one Tory candidate acts as a spokesperson whilst I am actually in discussions with a group of actual negotiators and actual representatives, does not make it the case. The fact is, more current live negotiations are taking place than at any time since this process began. More negotiations are in process, covering more claims, than ever before. The number of milestones reached is greater than ever before.

Hon Bill English: Given the Minister’s previous answers that something has changed and that nothing has changed, can he tell the House right now what has changed in respect of the Whenuakite farm as a result of the announcement yesterday?

Hon MARK BURTON: As a result of the announcement yesterday, it is my understanding that the board of Landcorp has advised the Minister for State Owned Enterprises that it will take no action for a month whilst the Government conducts a first tier of work. That is what is happening.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that the person who is leading the occupation at Whenuakite is the person nominated by the leader of the National Party to be a member of the boundaries commission?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, indeed I can confirm that fact.

Taxation—OECD Comparisons of Personal Tax

3. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on how New Zealand ranks in the OECD for personal taxation on the average family?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I am sure the member will be encouraged to continue asking such brilliant questions by the applause from members opposite. I am not sure they will welcome the answer quite as much. I received a report Taxing Wages Report 2006 from the OECD, which shows that for a single-income family with two children on the average full-time wage, New Zealand has the second-lowest tax wedge in the OECD at 2.9 percent, compared with the OECD average of 27.5 percent.

Shane Jones: Is the Government introducing any changes that will affect the tax wedge on average families?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed we are. In just exactly 1 month, the Working for Families tax credits will be extended by $10 per week per child, across the board. That will reduce the tax—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: More welfare!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Ah, “More welfare!”, says the member Dr Nick Smith. I invite him to go and tell that to the families who will be receiving it. That will reduce the tax wedge for an average family to close to zero. It will play a significant role in reducing child poverty, and that tax relief, like the tax cuts on savings and investments passed last year, is opposed by the National Party.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister recall the Government committing itself some years ago to lifting the incomes of New Zealand families into the top half of those in the OECD, and can he confirm that the reason he stopped talking about that goal is that they were was slipping back, not rising?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, the Government has committed itself over the long term to be in the top half of the OECD in terms of per capita GDP. However, it is not the only measure that this Government has, because, of course, one could be in the top half by having a very small number of extremely wealthy people and a lot of poor people—what some people have discovered is called an underclass, in technical language. This Government also believes in making sure that the average Kiwi battler family is better treated, comparatively, than similar families even in Australia—which the National Party opposed at every point.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that income splitting would further reduce personal taxation, especially for average single-income families; if so, should the New Zealand Government not follow the lead of the Canadian Government, which may introduce income splitting as early as this year’s Budget on 19 March?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is to be a discussion about that matter before the next election—and, indeed, a discussion document that Mr Dunne and I will be working on. I do have to point out that now, for the average single-income family with two children, the net tax owing is almost zero after Working for Families is taken into account. It is hard, by splitting incomes, to get much below that level.

Heather Roy: What will the Government do to restore Kiwis’ trust in Parliament and the public service, given that the OECD report Society at a Glance showed that the level of trust in this Parliament ranks third from the bottom of that in the OECD countries, ahead of only that in South Korea and the Czech Republic?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thank the member for that patsy question. That survey was taken in the years 1994 to 1999, when a National Government was in office.

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that, according to polls, income splitting is supported by 77 percent of all Canadians.

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

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that quotes the Finance Minister of Canada as saying that income splitting is an item on the table for Canada’s 19 March Budget.

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

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

4. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement to parents broadcast on 24 January 2007: “if you’re a parent and you’re watching this very simple, your child’s 3 to 4, you go down to the local centre, enrol, say my child’s here for these 20 hours, that’s all you do”; if so, why?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Education: That sort of mangled English is more like something my predecessor would have said than my normally erudite approach, but yes.

Katherine Rich: So, come 1 July, what happens next if a parent who watched the Minister goes down to the local centre and says: “My child’s 3 to 4. I’m here for my 20 free hours. That’s all I do.”, and staff at the centre say: “Sorry, it’s not on offer.”; what is the Minister’s advice to the tens of thousands of parents who will be disappointed?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The early childhood education centres that are fully staffed with registered staff and that choose not to take the $92 a week deduction for the 20 hours will, I think, be very few. Parents will put pressure on those centres to take it.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Has the Minister received any reports about anyone being confused about the rules of 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I apologise in advance for the length of the answer to that supplementary question. Yes, that person quoted half a sentence from the Ministry of Education handbook on 20 hours’ free early childhood education, claiming that the rules allow centres to refuse to enrol children whose parents do not wish to pay optional charges. Section 4.3 of the handbook clearly explains the use of optional charges. An optional charge is a request for a contribution that parents may choose whether or not to make. There will be no penalty for parents who choose to not make the contribution. It also explains that the optional charge may be enforced only once a parent has agreed to pay it. The Opposition spokesperson on education seemed to be confused about that in the House on Tuesday. If she had read the whole sentence from the handbook, rather than half the sentence, she would not have been confused. I will give her a bit of generosity and say she did it accidentally and cannot read well, because otherwise she would have been misleading Parliament.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister agree that the real beneficiaries of this policy will be those 3 and 4-year-olds who at present receive no early childhood education experience, at all—including 17.2 percent of those who go on to decile 1 schools; can he also confirm that $14.45 million has been set aside to provide learning accommodation for those children under the 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will take the member’s word on the second part of the question; I could get the additional information, but because I am acting on the Minister’s behalf in the House, I cannot confirm that. I agree that it will be very good to have that increased number of children receiving early childhood education, but a $92 per week discount, on average, for parents for the early childhood education of their kids is not bad for families, either.

Katherine Rich: Is the House to understand that the policy is now not about offering 20 free hours’ early childhood education but about offering a discount, as the Minister has just described it?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, the only person who thinks that is the member opposite. What I said was, on average, parents will be saving $92 per week, through getting free early childhood education. For members of a party that opposes that and wants to add $92 per week on to the bills of parents of 3 and 4-year-olds, as members opposite do, they are trying to defend free early childhood education a bit hard.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister understand what he has just done in shifting the description of the policy from one of being 20 free hours’ early childhood education to one of being a discount, when the Minister has studiously avoided the word “subsidy” previously; if so, does he now admit it is a discount?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: One can have a 100 percent discount—it will be free. What part of that does the member not understand? It will be free for 3 and 4-year-olds in the centres that are offering it. My bet is that over a period of time just about every centre will offer it, because why would a parent use a centre that is, on average, $92 per week more expensive than the one next door to it?

Katherine Rich: What would the Minister’s reaction be if the Auckland Kindergarten Association—an association that oversees 107 kindergartens in Auckland—announces that it will not be implementing the 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy, because by accepting it, it will be worse off?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have not consulted with the Minister on that, but I can say from my experience that it would be one of disbelief. Generally the people involved in running the Auckland Kindergarten Association have been bright people, and they are people who know that getting this additional amount of money—and a lot more going forward—is in the interests of the parents represented by that association. I am sure that the good people who run the Auckland Kindergarten Association are not prepared to sacrifice a very large amount of funding next year, and even more the year after that.

Katherine Rich: Can we take it from the Minister’s last statement that he is going to threaten centres if they do not take up this offer, and can he explain to the House why the Auckland Kindergarten Association should implement the policy of 20 free hours if it will get less money overall, per child, per hour, than it gets now?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No.

Office of Treaty Settlements—Advice

5. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Kua ea tōna hiahia ki ngā tohutohu a te Tari Whakatau Take e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi; meinā kāre, he aha ai?

[Is he satisfied with the advice provided by the Office of Treaty Settlements; if not, why not?]

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Generally, yes, because they are hard-working and conscientious officials.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora anō tātou. What explanation can the Minister give for the fact that when asked about the repossession that began on Sunday at Whenuakite Station the Prime Minister responded on Monday by saying: “I haven’t had any briefing on that one, at all.”, and that statement was used in the New Zealand Herald this morning; and would he not agree that the early warning of such action falls within the core functions of the Office of Treaty Settlements to “Advise on the acquisition, management, transfer and disposal of Crown-owned property for Treaty claim purposes.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I think the member is aware, there is not yet a mandated negotiation in process, so the section that the member quotes does not seem to me to apply to that case. In any event, the Office of Treaty Settlements provided appropriate advice to the appropriate people.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou i te Whare. Is the Minister willing to formally apologise to the properly mandated negotiators for Ngāti Kahu and Hauraki for the monstrous cock-up caused by the lack of clear communication between various Government agencies and their Ministers, and for the harm caused to those negotiators and their whānau, hapū, and iwi by the insensitive and arrogant manner in which he lent tacit approval to Landcorp, offering for sale to the highest bidder lands that should properly have been made available for Treaty settlement?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do not accept the assertions in the member’s question, and, certainly, some of those assertions are factually incorrect.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister not accepting assertions mean that he addressed the question, because he did not address it or answer it, at all?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, he addressed the question.

Hone Harawira: Shall I read it again?

Madam SPEAKER: No, the Minister has addressed the question.

Christopher Finlayson: Is the real problem not so much the quality of the advice tendered by the Office of Treaty Settlements but the Minister’s capacity to understand that advice?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, that too is not factually correct.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Has the Minister read comments from Landcorp Chairman, Mr Jim Sutton, that the Crown entity was the “meat in the sandwich” in relation to Hauraki Māori concerns about a prime block of Coromandel land, and that: “There is obviously a claim on this land that we were not aware of. Had we been aware of it, of course we would have been trying to persuade the Office of Treaty Settlements to purchase it.”; and would he not have considered it to be the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements to advise Landcorp accordingly?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I have seen those comments; I think it is the role of Landcorp to make decisions based on its obligations, and it is the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements to make decisions and provide advice according to its mandate.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm to the House today whether it is the case that Landcorp properties such as this one will now be available for Treaty settlements, and that the Government has changed its mind because one group protested?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that properties of Landcorp such as this one have always been potentially available, and still are. Therefore, nothing has changed.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table the article entitled “Land sale on shaky ground” from the New Zealand Herald of 27 February 2007, in which the Prime Minister admits that she has no brief on the Whenuakite situation.

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

Legal Aid—Access to Justice

6. KATE WILKINSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he have confidence that the additional estimated 435,000 New Zealanders eligible for legal aid as of today will have proper, speedy, and inexpensive access to justice; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes. I have confidence that the Legal Services Agency and dedicated members of the legal profession will continue to work together constructively, to ensure that legal aid services are delivered to New Zealanders most in need.

Kate Wilkinson: How can the Minister be confident of access to justice for all New Zealanders, when women in Blenheim still have to represent themselves in court to obtain protection orders, when women in the Manawatū also have to represent themselves in court to obtain protection orders; and can he possibly understand why many women simply find this too difficult and withdraw from the process, having been denied proper access to justice?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can say to the member that there are now 2,963 listed legal aid providers, which is slightly more than in the previous year. But the problem she highlights is that as with so many other professions and services in a country with a relatively small population, from time to time and in some areas there will be issues of supply of service. This is something the Legal Services Agency is looking into, and certainly in the area of domestic violence it is looking at some alternative strategies in order to try to overcome the problem.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister be crystal clear—does he stand by his statement yesterday that an additional 435,000 New Zealanders will be eligible for legal aid; and given his department does not record whether those in receipt of legal aid are New Zealanders, will his new thresholds enable foreign nationals additionally to claim legal aid?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: You’re all right, Peter.

Hon MARK BURTON: As my colleague says, the member is safe. I can say to the member that the criteria in terms of residential status is not changing, but the thresholds are. Indeed, it does mean that hundreds of thousands of additional, generally low-income and modest-income New Zealanders will now be eligible for support.

Kate Wilkinson: How can the Minister be confident of access to justice for all New Zealanders when in Central Otago one of the three family legal aid lawyers advised that in the space of only one week she had two desperate women clients needing help, but whom she could not help because of a conflict of interest—one, sadly, was a woman aged less than 20 years requiring a domestic protection order; she had a young baby, access only to a mobile phone with no call credit available, neither driver’s licence nor vehicle, and at best a lawyer 100 to 200 kilometres away—and how does making more people eligible for legal aid possibly help these women?

Hon MARK BURTON: I will deal with the second part of the question first. Making legal aid available to more New Zealanders is self-explanatory. It means that a great number of people who yesterday were not able to access legal aid, today are able, in terms of their eligibility. Secondly, those of us who live in provincial New Zealand know that it is often the case that in some areas from time to time there will be some difficulty with specialist services. That is something the Legal Services Agency is looking at right now, and is working to help resolve this particular problem.

Kate Wilkinson: How does the Minister reconcile his statement on 19 February 2007, in relation to legal aid lawyers, that the evidence is that the number of participating lawyers has been relatively steady, when the number of family legal aid lawyers has plummeted from 2,012 to 1,017 in the space of 12 months—which is why domestic violence victims end up representing themselves in court?

Hon MARK BURTON: Because the total listed legal aid provider number has increased from 2,908 in 2005 to 2,963 last year.

Kate Wilkinson: How can the Minister expect us to believe that the number of participating lawyers has been relatively steady, when he has correspondence dating back to March last year that show that in Blenheim only two lawyers are prepared to take one legal aid case a fortnight, that only three lawyers in the Manawatū region are undertaking family legal aid work, and that only three are doing so in Central Otago?

Hon MARK BURTON: I refer the member to the answer to the last supplementary question.

Kate Wilkinson: I seek leave to table the Morning Report radio transcript that recorded that a woman withdrew her protection order application because of a lack of legal representation, only to be abused again by her partner.

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

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question confirming that the Legal Services Agency does not even record whether a recipient of legal aid is a New Zealander or a foreign national.

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

Kate Wilkinson: I seek leave to table a letter from the Blenheim women’s refuge, dated June last year, stating that clients prepare their own protection orders, and appear in court only to withdraw from the process because it is too difficult.

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

Question Time

Madam SPEAKER: I call question No. 7, Steve Chadwick.

Hon Member: Your worship the mayor.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member interjecting is clearly confused that I am standing for the mayoralty of Rotorua. That rumour is about as real as that member standing for the Māori constituency on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. That is not a point of order, but it is useful at this stage perhaps to remind members that gratuitous personal comments that do not relate at all to the question or the answer do lead to disorder in the House, so I ask members to restrain themselves, please.

Carbon Footprint—Reduction

7. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Energy: What reports has he received on measures to reduce New Zealand’s carbon footprint?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): I have received reports on progress at both a local and an economy-wide level. Locally, I congratulate my colleague Chris Carter on the new energy-efficient Department of Conservation building, which uses 40 percent less power than a conventional building. This translates to a very substantial 40 percent reduction in any energy-related emissions from the operation of the building. On an economy-wide basis, Holcim Cement, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Greenpeace have all produced major contributions on emissions trading.

Steve Chadwick: Aside from last week’s announcement by Meridian Energy about its carbon-neutral status and Contact Energy’s plans to spend nearly $2 billion on renewables, can the Minister inform the House about other measures being pursued in the energy sector to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can. Solid Energy is making a $2 million investment in clean-coal technology development in Australia as part of its push towards carbon neutrality, and both the public and private sectors are working to achieve lower greenhouse gas emissions. It seems clear that the Government’s clean-energy policies are creating a sustainable future for our children and for their children.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept the front page story in the Independent that quotes energy analyst Molly Melhuish and the Grey Power president as stating that the Minister’s energy strategy figures for the residential sector are all wrong and out by an order of magnitude; and how can New Zealanders take seriously this strategy if such basic pieces of energy data are grossly wrong?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have not read that article. I will read it, but I do not think there are any major errors in the strategy.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Government propose to implement measures such as a carbon tax as part of its quest to reduce our carbon emissions, and does the Minister agree that without the tax it will be impossible for New Zealand to achieve the Prime Minister’s goal of becoming carbon neutral?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We are presently consulting on a range of options as to how a price for emissions could be devolved in different parts of the economy. Some of the measures being consulted upon are emissions trading and other mechanisms including carbon taxes and regulatory measures. Those are not off the agenda; all of those things are still being consulted upon.

Peter Brown: Is it true or false that clean-coal technology, when it finally arrives, will have more effect on reducing carbon dioxide emissions on a global basis than anything else we are doing in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is certainly true that clean-coal technology is very important in terms of stationary energy emissions internationally, particularly in developing countries but also in the United States, Australia, and Europe. It seems very likely there will be a considerable price tag attached to future carbon capture and storage technology, which is at the heart of clean-coal technology. That, again, implies a comparative advantage for New Zealand, because we are not going to have nearly as much of that cost as Australia, the United States, Europe, and China. Virtually all of our trade competitors are facing higher costs.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a 2006 report pointing out that without a carbon tax, the Government will fail to implement an effective climate change policy.

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

Ingram Report—Associate Minister of Immigration

8. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: In which paragraph, if any, of the Ingram report does Noel Ingram QC “conclusively conclude” that the former Associate Minister of Immigration did not receive information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Sunan Siriwan before making his decision on 23 June 2005 to authorise a work visa for Mr Siriwan?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I refer the member to the responses I gave to supplementary question Nos 1, 4, 5, and 6 following question for oral answer No. 9 on 28 February 2007.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to expand, and, if necessary, read out the answers. Just making reference is not sufficient.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Madam Speaker, you would like me to read out all of those answers again?

Madam SPEAKER: If necessary. The member who asked the question wants it to be addressed fully.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In response to supplementary question No. 1, I said as follows—

Hon Members: Which paragraph?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am following the Speaker’s direction. I said as follows: “These matters were fully covered in the Ingram inquiry. Dr Ingram QC talks about the most likely scenario of events and that member in his select committee has issued a report that says the former Minister was blameless.” In response to supplementary question No. 4, I said: “My understanding of the balance of the Ingram inquiry’s report conclusion is the same as the member’s own and the select committee report issued”—then—“2 days ago, which says that the department’s processes compromised the Minister.” In response to supplementary question No. 5, I said—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please be seated. There is constant criticism that Ministers do not fully address questions. It is entirely unacceptable in this House for the Minister to be told to shut up when he is addressing the question. [Interruption] The member who said that can leave, please. That is just outrageous.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would certainly withdraw and apologise. I do take the point you make. However, I have question No. 12.

Madam SPEAKER: I hope that members do take my point. Members are constantly complaining that these matters are not properly addressed. The Minister is addressing the question. No Minister has to give a yes or no answer to the question. That is clearly understood. Would the Minister please succinctly address it.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you for considering the position that Dr Wayne Mapp found himself in, but please accept that his outburst was based on the frustration of knowing that the Minister was asked a simple question as to which paragraph it was. The Minister would do better to say nothing than to bore the House to tears with his lack of knowledge.

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order. If we all clearly expressed ourselves through frustration in this House, there would be no one left. We have to show some restraint. Would the Minister please just address the question succinctly.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: To assist the House, I think that I can say that the responses to supplementary question No. 6 on that day were similar to the others that I have just read out.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister’s performance that you have just witnessed brings this House and its procedures into disrepute. The Minister has had on notice, for the last 4 hours now, a very clear question asking which paragraph contains what that Minister told the House on Tuesday of this week—that Noel Ingram conclusively concluded something. It is a very clear question, and I believe, if this House is not to be brought into total disrepute, that the Minister should answer it. He has not.

Madam SPEAKER: Of course, the members in this House can read the Ingram report for themselves, and they probably have. The Minister is not obliged to give an answer in any particular form or to identify statements in the report that he is not responsible for. The Minister certainly must address questions. It is not his report, but the member cannot demand that a particular answer is given to a particular question. What the Standing Orders require is that the question be addressed. If members do want specific answers, then I would ask them to please have the Standing Orders changed. It would make life a lot easier for most of us.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question I asked the Minister was actually about a statement that the Minister made to this House. So I was not asking him about the Ingram report in general, for which he is not responsible. But he is responsible for what he has told this Parliament. He told this Parliament on Tuesday of this week that Noel Ingram “conclusively concluded” that Damien O’Connor did not know before he made his decision. I asked the Minister where in the report that is contained.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The clarification from the member is helpful, because he has clarified that it was my opinion that he was after. In response to that point of order, I am happy to clarify that in my opinion, because the Ingram inquiry is the only authoritative analysis of the matter, the effect of its on-balance judgment must be regarded as conclusive.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How would that Minister describe his answer to the House on Tuesday this week that “the Ingram inquiry report conclusively concludes that the Minister in question did not receive the information before he made the decision.”, as anything other than false, when the Ingram inquiry report actually concludes: “Real uncertainty results from the available evidence.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Although I would not claim that my answer has particular elegance, I would suggest that it is rather better than the circular and repetitive questions.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That surely cannot be seen to be addressing the question.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister has addressed the question. One of the difficulties is that when Ministers are asked for opinions, they do not necessarily have to give their opinion. I think that the line of questioning has been along the lines that these are statements of fact.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is another difficulty that arises here. The Minister just used the opportunity to speak to another point of order to clarify a mistake he made in an answer earlier in the week. At what point did he become aware of that, and why did he not formally correct an answer he gave earlier in the week? He is trying to couch it in terms of his own opinion. If we read the Hansard, he categorically stated that the Ingram report “conclusively concluded”, and he presented it to the House as though they were the words of Noel Ingram QC. Clearly, they were not. Quite the opposite is true.

Madam SPEAKER: We understand the point.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I have to say that had I felt I had made a mistake, I most certainly would have clarified that point to the House. I did not make, and do not feel I made, a mistake; rather, I am restating the opinion I gave the other day, which is quite simply that because the report is the only authoritative analysis we have, its conclusions must be taken as conclusive. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How does this Minister explain the file note of the Apia branch manager, James Dalmer, following his phone call with Damien O’Connor’s private secretary on 28 June, 5 days after Mr O’Connor signed his letter to Taito Phillip Field granting a visa for Mr Siriwan—a file note that reads: “Knowledge of Thai cases. Knows that Taito had these people working for him. Damien knew that before he made the decision.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That too has been quite thoroughly covered in Mr Ingram’s report, which, of course, the member is at liberty to reread. As I recall it, in my opinion, the balance of judgment was that what the private secretary thought she said was different from what Mr Dalmer thought he heard.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Who is the more credible: the Apia branch manager, who had a clear file note that “Damien knew … before he made the decision.”, or the Minister’s private secretary, who first told the Ingram inquiry she could not recall a logged phone call, then that she could but could not remember what was discussed, then that she could remember the discussion but did not take any notice of it, then that she told Damien many weeks, if not several months, after his decision, and, finally, that she told him within a day or two of his decision—whose evidence is more credible?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As we have exhaustively clarified in this House, I am not responsible for Dr Ingram or the manner of the production of his inquiry. I simply refer the member to the only authoritative analysis that the House has at its disposal, and I would not presume to second-guess it.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How plausible is it that Damien O’Connor’s private secretary, who knew the then Associate Minister had declined a visa for Siriwan in October 2004, and again in March 2005, who was present at the meeting with Taito Phillip Field on 17 May 2005 and knew that Mr Field had misrepresented the outcome of that meeting in his letter of 18 May, who would receive an email from compliance officer Murray Gardiner about Mr Field’s involvement with Siriwan in Samoa on 27 May, and who would further receive a phone call from the head of service international on 9 June confirming Siriwan’s involvement with Mr Field in Samoa, would say nothing whatsoever to her Minister when she gave him the file for his decision just 8 days later?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In my humble opinion it is entirely credible, and, for what it is worth, it is conveyed in paragraphs 157 and 158 of the Ingram inquiry report. If members would indulge me, I might add that it is supported by evidence referred to by Dr Ingram in paragraphs 125, 131, 138, 144, 151, 153, 188, 200, and 491—and why would I second-guess that?

Aviation Security—New Measures

9. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister for Transport Safety: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that New Zealand is prepared to introduce new aviation security measures in March this year?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): The Government has launched a major public awareness campaign called Flysmart to inform international airline travellers about the new security measures that will be introduced on 31 March. These measures will limit the amounts of liquids, aerosols, and gels that can be taken on board aircraft in carry-on baggage on international flights departing New Zealand. The Aviation Security Service is recruiting around 160 additional staff to implement these measures and has already begun training to ensure minimum disruption to the travelling public.

Sue Moroney: What advice is the Government giving to the public to enable them to avoid delays?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Through the Flysmart campaign the Government is advising passengers about how to pack their carry-on baggage so that they will not be delayed at the airport. Information has already been provided to travel agents and airlines to pass on to customers, and there will be plenty of signs at airports. The Government has also established the Flysmart website for international travellers. In the 2 weeks that the website has been live there have already been over 8,000 hits on the website. People are interested.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister recall a few weeks back some, I think, Indian gentlemen boarding a relatively small commercial aircraft with ceremonial knives under their garments, which made a number of passengers somewhat nervous, thinking that perhaps the plane was about to be hijacked; and, if he does recall that occurrence, what will he do to ensure that it does not happen again?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: First, I observe that the aircraft concerned was a medium-sized propeller aircraft with a range of somewhere in the order of 600 kilometres, making it really not possible to hijack it to anywhere, except maybe to the Chatham Islands on a good day if one was lucky. The security risk assessment means that we do not need to screen the aircraft; but, secondly, I observe that the pilot on the aircraft offered to look after the ceremonial knives on the flight deck, to ensure that passengers could feel less anxious about their safety.

I seek leave to table the Flysmart pack of information, which illustrates for members what is permissible and not permissible on various flights.

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

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I seek leave to table a pack of the typical sorts of items that members of Parliament might like to note are permissible on flights, provided they are packed like this for carry-on baggage.

Items tabled.

Small Business Advisory Group—Recommendations

10. LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) to the Minister for Small Business: Is she satisfied with the improvement from 5.3 out of 10 to 5.8 out of 10 that the Small Business Advisory Group has scored the Government’s response to its recommendations; if so, why?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Small Business): Relatively so, because it is going in the right direction.

Lindsay Tisch: Was it the Government’s consistent low scoring by the Small Business Advisory Group that led her to replace its entire membership; if not, why did she not retain several members, for the benefit of their institutional knowledge?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Mr Cleverley, who was a member of the group, was reported in the Dominion Post on 29 December 2006 as saying: “It is good to see we’re on the ball over there. Being part of the group involved a lot of unpaid time so after 3 years it was time for the first group to move on and a fresh lot to step in.”

Maryan Street: When was the first Small Business Advisory Group established, and what has been the response to the Government having such an advisory group?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The first group was established in 2003, originally for 18 months, but the members agreed to stay on until the end of 2006. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. As the group said in its final report to me: “It has created an effective conduit between small business and Government policy makers. We want to thank the Government for giving us open access to Ministers, officials, and documents. We have valued the trust you have placed in us.”

Lindsay Tisch: If, as the Minister stated in February 2006, the Holidays Act is “fundamentally sound”, why was she corrected by the advisory group, which said: “The Holidays Act is not a fundamentally sound piece of legislation. It is extremely difficult to implement.”?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: As Mr Cleverley also stated in the Dominion Post on 29 December 2006: “It was brave of the Government to appoint such a group, which had at times given the Government blunt advice about dealing with the concerns and challenges of small business.” The difference between advice and Government policy is that one informs the other. We do not necessarily agree with advice.

Lindsay Tisch: If, as the Minister stated: “The Government is committed to enacting a real change for small and medium enterprises.”, then why has the Government ignored the advisory group’s calls in both its reports for a personal grievance - free probation period for new employees?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The member would know, if he had actually read the Government response to the second report, that we have, indeed, published one of the options that the group put up in that document, which suggests a different way of dealing with the issue rather than having a probation-free period. That is not the only option that should be considered.

Chris Tremain: What has the Minister done to advocate on behalf of the 211,000 self-employed persons who make up 63 percent of small businesses that the Small Business Advisory Group was formed to represent, but who will miss out on both KiwiSaver and the business tax benefits that the Government will deliver to the employed and to corporations this year?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Heaps.

Police—Technical Offences

11. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Police: Is it police policy to arrest and prosecute people for every technical offence committed—for example, when parents keep their children out of school to take them on a family holiday?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Police: No. The police, in all cases, weigh up whether it is in the public interest to bring matters before the court. Issues regarded as minor offences very rarely reach this stage.

Sue Bradford: What are the main factors police consider when deciding whether to prosecute someone for a trivial or a technical offence?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There are two key guidelines in terms of the police decision as to whether to prosecute. The first is whether there is evidential sufficiency—that is, sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed. The second is that the police have to weigh up whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, and when they do that they generally follow the Crown Solicitor’s prosecution guidelines. For an alleged assault, for example, this would involve, among other things, consideration of the amount of force used in all the circumstances.

Sue Bradford: What are some of the other factors that police would take into account to determine whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution, were my Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill to become law?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Crown Solicitor’s prosecution guidelines take into account a range of different factors. Probably the most important is the seriousness, or, conversely, the triviality, of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really merits the intervention of the criminal law. They would look at all mitigating or aggravating circumstances. They would look at the effect of public opinion on any decision not to prosecute. They would look at the availability of any proper alternatives to prosecution. So the member will get a sense that the police will decide in all the circumstances on something that is serious and warrants the intervention of the law, not something that would be regarded as an offence, but as relatively minor.

Chester Borrows: Will the Minister confirm that every reported smacking will be investigated by police because not to investigate such matters seriously will be counter to the current family violence policy, which states: “The majority of offenders in family violence cases will appear before the Court. There may be rare cases when diversion might be considered, providing it is not seen as the ‘easy option’.”?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I had the chance to look at the submission the police made to the select committee. The relevant part of it states that if section 59 were repealed, this would mean that in all cases of suspected or reported assaults on children, the police would continue to investigate the alleged assaults—that is, the police are obliged to do that right now. So, in that sense, there will not be a great change in practice.

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the current police family violence policy.

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

Sue Bradford: Who can the public turn to for authoritative advice on police practice in respect of police procedures on family violence?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Commissioner of Police himself is responsible for publishing the best-practice guidelines. They are circulated through to the police—through, I think, the intranet, police bulletin boards, and the police magazine. I am advised that the best-practice guidelines in all areas would be available to the police on request, and the same would apply in regard to the member’s bill.

Auckland—Development Plans

12. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: Does she prefer the proposal of the political reference group or the One Auckland Plan of four Auckland metro Mayors, of which she said: “I’m impressed with the proposal—one plan, one voice and an agreed direction”, to form the basis of legislation to develop Auckland?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: Well, I am certainly one of the Prime Minister’s little helpers on Auckland issues! The member kindly refers to the Minister’s press statement on 8 September 2006, which also said: “I support any move which helps Auckland to become an internationally competitive … city.” In December the four mayors, along with the rest of the political reference group, presented a different proposal. That proposal is now the one under consideration and discussion between the Government and Auckland leaders.

Dr Wayne Mapp: When will the Government actually introduce legislation on Auckland regional governance—when?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: When the Government has finished its discussions with Auckland leaders and made its decisions.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Is the Government aware that unless it introduces legislation in the next 3 sitting weeks, it will be actually too late to have effective reform for the next local body elections?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I remind the member that early this afternoon Mr Brownlee referred to a lack of work. This would suggest that there might be sufficient time to do lots of things before the next local body elections.

Dr Wayne Mapp: If I interpret his answer as being that he can introduce legislation within the next 3 weeks, does that mean that consultation with the public will occur only during a 1 or 2 month select committee process?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. In fact, the political reference group’s proposals may or may not require legislation, depending upon its final outcome. It certainly does not necessarily require legislation that will have to take effect before the next local body elections, because that is not the nature of its proposals.

Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 June 2007, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

The grievances of Te Rōroa are significant and longstanding. This bill recognises and addresses those grievances. This bill settles all of Te Rōroa’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims.

Te Rōroa is a group of approximately 3,000 members, based in Auckland. Their area of interest runs from south of Dargaville to the Hokianga, and centres on the Waipoua Forest, the home of the giant kauri taonga, Tāne Māhuta. It is an area rich in history and resources. I want to pause to acknowledge and welcome to this House the representatives of Te Rōroa who have made the long journey here this afternoon to join us for the first reading of the bill.

The historical claims relate to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty. These include the cession of land at Te Kōpuru in 1842, Crown land purchases from 1876, and the operation and impacts of the native land laws. These breaches have resulted in Te Rōroa being left virtually landless. Te Rōroa’s claims also relate to the separation of Te Rōroa from their wāhi tapu and taonga. The claim has often been referred to as a wāhi tapu claim, reflecting the number of significant cultural and archaeological sites across their rohe. The Crown acknowledges in this settlement that the separation of Te Rōroa from their wāhi tapu and taonga has been a source of great spiritual and emotional pain.

Te Rōroa have travelled a long road to have their claims addressed by the Crown. They have sought redress on a wide range of issues since 1861. The Crown has failed to deal appropriately with the grievances of Te Rōroa before this settlement. Te Rōroa and the Crown began Treaty settlement negotiations back in 1992, the year the Waitangi Tribunal released its report into their claims. The year 1992 was, of course—as you know yourself, Madam Speaker—a significant year in Treaty settlements generally. It was the year of the fisheries claims settlement, and it is the point in time we use to distinguish between historical and contemporary Treaty claims.

In 1993 Te Rōroa and the Crown entered into a framework agreement governing the conduct of negotiations. Three years later, in 1996, the Crown formally recognised the mandate of Te Rōroa negotiators, and the parties signed terms of negotiation specifying the objects and general procedures for the negotiations. In December 2004 the Crown and Te Rōroa signed an agreement in principle, and in December 2005 we signed a deed of settlement after an overwhelming majority of voters showed their support by postal vote.

At the same time, a representative, transparent, and accountable Government entity—the Te Rōroa Manu Whenua Trust—was ratified. Te Rōroa Manu Whenua Trust will receive and manage the majority of the settlement assets. Te Rōroa have also established a second trust—Te Rōroa Whatu Ora Trust—which has a commercial focus and will receive and administer the commercial redress properties.

Te Rōroa were there at the start of the Treaty settlement process and have experienced its development firsthand. They have known many administrations and faced many challenges along the way. The introduction of this bill signals the final stage of the long journey for Te Rōroa to have their grievances properly resolved. Settling this claim is also an important further step in this country’s progress towards settling all historical Treaty claims.

The bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the deed of settlement. That includes the offering of a Crown apology for its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and principles; financial and commercial redress totalling $9.5 million, and cultural redress, including the vesting of 24 sites of cultural and spiritual significance to Te Rōroa; the declaration of an overlay classification over an area of the Waipoua Forest; statutory acknowledgments of the special association of Te Rōroa with two statutory areas; entry by the Crown and Te Rōroa into deeds of recognition relating to two sites; protocols issued by four Ministers of the Crown; various items of fisheries redress; and six place name changes.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Te Rōroa people, who suffered the breaches of the Treaty and who for so long carried the grievances. I particularly acknowledge those who are no longer with us, those Te Rōroa kuia and kaumātua who tirelessly sought justice in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, and Ned Nathan and Emily Paniora, who took the Te Rōroa claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. I also acknowledge the Te Rōroa Iwi Authority and its successor, the Te Rōroa Manu Whenua Trust, including the members of the negotiating team. Their dedication, commitment, and tenacity on behalf of Te Rōroa have been vital in the long and difficult path towards achieving this settlement.

I also thank the other Ministers and departments involved in this process. A wide variety of people from across the political spectrum have made important contributions to this settlement over the years. I may be wrong, but it is perhaps the first settlement that has involved every Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.

As New Zealanders, I believe we can all be proud that real and significant grievances suffered by Māori are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law. The public can be reassured that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims that will be settled by this bill, and that the settlement has been negotiated with the interests of all citizens in mind. It is not possible to compensate Te Rōroa fully for all the prejudice and loss its people have suffered. Although this bill enables the transfer of several sites to Te Rōroa, the Crown is fully aware that all the traditional lands of importance are not being transferred. It is the case that the people of Northland and of New Zealand generally have benefited from this land and other resources alienated from Te Rōroa.

I acknowledge on the record of this House Te Rōroa’s courage, their foresight, and—perhaps most of all—their generosity in reaching this settlement, looking to their future, and helping the future of our country. There could be no settlements and therefore no resolution of historical grievances without such resolute and courageous leadership.

The goal of this Government is to reach settlements that resolve grievances of the past. This settlement with Te Rōroa lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between Te Rōroa and the Crown, into the future. The bill makes it clear that this is a final settlement of all the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Te Rōroa. The settlement has had a very high level of support from the claimant community. Ninety-two percent of those who validly participated voted in support of the Crown’s settlement offer.

The people of Te Rōroa have been waiting a very long time to have their grievances against the Crown addressed. They have worked hard and sacrificed much to realise this settlement. For these reasons I consider that the bill should therefore proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee and be reported back on or before 1 June 2007. This will allow the timely transfer of settlement redress to Te Rōroa. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Ngā mihi ki a koutou e ngā iwi, e ngā whānau o Te Rōroa. I am pleased to stand on behalf of National to support the introduction of the Te Rōroa Claims Settlement Bill to this House, and I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate. I too want to join the Minister Mark Burton in congratulating Te Rōroa. I salute them very sincerely, because they were already in negotiations when National was in Government in the 1990s. As an Associate Minister to Sir Douglas Graham, I had the pleasure of meeting with them, along with my colleague the Hon Tau Henare, on some of the matters that now comprise this settlement legislation. I also pay tribute to the late Ned Nathan, whom I had the privilege of sitting with on the Waitangi Tribunal when I was first appointed to that body in 1986.

The fact that this settlement bill is before Parliament today is a tribute, in my view, to the fortitude of Te Rōroa and to their willingness to focus on the long term and to stay with the plan—particularly when dealing with the current Labour administration. Labour has been in Government for 7½ years and, despite its regular boasts of progress in concluding Treaty settlements, it is now finding that the wheels are starting to fall off its management of the process. Te Rōroa would have required not only the wisdom of Solomon but also the patience of Job. When one reads their history, as set out in the settlement bill, one can only conclude that they have had both in heaps over many generations, and particularly so in the last 5 to 10 years.

Te Rōroa hail from ancient beginnings, and the events that gave rise to the Te Rōroa claims began surfacing just 2 years after five of their rangatira signed the Treaty of Waitangi. I mention this in order to give a flavour of how soon it was after the signing of the Treaty that breaches by the Crown began to occur. As I say, this is well set out in the bill. Of course, it is also all backed up by a comprehensive Waitangi Tribunal report that came out many, many years ago. This is a sad part of our history, but it is not a part of our history that we of the current generation need to feel ashamed of. Indeed, what we should feel pleased about is that we, in the 21^st century and in this Parliament, have the chance to make reparation for the injustices that have occurred, both in the case of Te Rōroa and in the case of other tribes, as well—some of whom are yet to settle.

I will comment briefly on the boasts, particularly of the last 10 days, made by the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mark Burton, and the boasts made by the Government, in general, of the wonderful progress that they believe they have made in the settlement of Treaty claims. I could be wrong—and perhaps the Minister would like to correct me at some time—but out of all the settlement bills that have come to this House in the last 7 years, I do not think that this Government started negotiating one of them from scratch. As far as I can tell, the settlements that have been concluded under the Labour administration were all under negotiation when Sir Douglas Graham was in this post. So I think that the current Minister and Government should think twice about boasting.

The reality is that the National Government in the 1990s set the format and developed the policy—none of that has changed. One would have thought that with this Government’s having inherited a strong settlement base, it might have been able to bring better momentum to this process. The Government has had the advantage of all of the really hard work that had gone on before it came to power, but it has not really taken advantage of it.

This is symptomatic of what the Government is facing right now, what with land occupations, court action by Māori on the forestry settlement, and the potential for court action on the fisheries settlement. If I were the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, I certainly would not be standing in this House and pretending that great progress has been made. Indeed, Māori claimants are talking to National now, because they see that we are likely to become the Government next year. In fact, some of them are saying that there is at last some hope, with the likelihood of National getting into power, that this process might gather up some real speed.

So, without detracting from the efforts of Te Rōroa, those comments have to be made, because this is just the first reading. The Opposition will be doing its part to make sure that the process through the select committee goes well and smoothly. All I can say is that, hopefully, sooner rather than later the fortitude, courage, and strong leadership that has been shown by this group of people from the far north will be rewarded.

I am very pleased to contribute to this debate. However, I think that this Minister and this Government need to take stock. Although they have very little time left in Government, they should move to see whether they can put before this House a settlement that they have actually started from scratch. To Te Rōroa, ngā mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): E te Kaiwhakawā, tēnā anō koe. Koutou, tātou o te Whare nei tēnā hoki tātou. Kei te tū atu, ngā mihi ki a koutou mai i te hau kāinga kua tatū mai nei rā i te rā nei, koutou e Alex, e Wīremu, e te whaea Mārama, e te tuahine Ōriana. E tika hoki māku kia tautoko ngā mihi i mihingia e ngā kaikōrero i tū atu i mua i a au ki a koutou o Te Rōroa i haere mai tawhiti kia tae i waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei. Ngā mihi ki a koutou mō ngā mahi pakeke i mahia e koutou ki te whakaotingia ngā mahi i tuku te iwi i runga i ō koutou pokohiwi.

Kei te mihi hoki ki a rātou o Te Rōroa kua ngaro ki te ao wairua mai i te tīmatanga o te kaupapa nei, tae mai ki nāianei. Kahore kau kē e hiahia ana au ki te whakahuahuangia ngā ingoa ō rātou mā nā te mea, kei mahue tētahi. Engari ko te mea nui kia mihi atu ki a rātou ahakoa i whakahuahua ētahi o ngā ingoa mai i tētahi o ngā kaikōrero i tū ake i mua i a au.

Ka huri ki a tātou o tēnei o te ao tūroa. He mihi hoki ki a koutou o te hau kāinga e noho ana i raro i ngā maunga hī o te wā kāinga. Nō reira e kara e Hāmi, ko koe he mōrehu o ngā hunga o te ao kōhatu, ko koe e takoto mai nei i roto i te māuiuitanga nā reira, tēnā koe, arā, tēnā koutou. I te rā nei ka kite anō i a koutou tētahi o ngā hua i puta mai i tēnei mahi whakahirahira mō te iwi o Te Rōroa.

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

[Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to all of us as well of this House. I rise to acknowledge you who have arrived here from home today, Alex, Wīremu, Aunt Mārama, and sister Ōriana. It is apt, too, that I endorse the greetings extended to you, Te Rōroa, who have travelled from afar to be in our midst today, by those who spoke before me. The hard work that went into completing what the people had placed upon your shoulders is acknowledged.

I acknowledge those of Te Rōroa too who have passed away since this settlement process began, to the present day. I do not wish to name individuals, because someone might get left out. Even though speakers before me mentioned some, the important thing is that they are acknowledged.

So I turn to us of this longstanding world. To you beneath the peaks of home, Hāmi, elder, survivor of the old world, bedridden and ailing, greetings to you and to all of you back there. Today you will see one of the benefits of this wonderful work emerge for Te Rōroa.]

On behalf of New Zealand First it is my pleasure to participate in the first reading of the Te Rōroa Claims Settlement Bill. This is part of a continuum of the whole settlement process involving Treaty of Waitangi claims. The process in respect of this particular claim began in 1992, following the release of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report. That report has had an impact on subsequent settlements, particularly in regard to property and private ownership. The bill also gives effect to aspects of the deed of settlement signed in 2005 between Te Rōroa and the Crown. So one can quite clearly see that this claim has taken some time to settle, and I hope it is not an example of the length of time it will take to settle future claims.

What is more pleasurable about this bill is that it helps to bring some closure on matters of the 19^th century and, indeed, matters that occurred over the latter part of last century pertaining to this iwi. I and my colleagues of the New Zealand First Party certainly recognise the fact that no settlement can change the events of the past. However, it is hoped that this bill will help to compensate Te Rōroa, by providing it with some form of redress. I say that in the context of a view expressed by the Waitangi Tribunal. I have already quoted that view in debates on earlier bills of the same nature as this bill, and I will repeat it again. “Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Maori, to restore the honour of the Government, to ensure cultural survival, and to re-establish effective interaction between the Treaty partners.”

The first reading of this bill addresses the claims made by Te Rōroa, which is an iwi that has roughly 3,000 members. Although Te Rōroa may be one of the smallest iwi to have its claims addressed, that does not in any way diminish its status or standing within Māoridom or our country. I congratulate the iwi members on their tenacity. In passing, I mention that I belong to a tribal grouping that is conservatively estimated to have 15,000 to 25,000 members, and whose structure meets all the requirements, both culturally and legislatively, for it to be described as an iwi. Yet it is being denied access to that status and to other processes that could gain it access to resources that would see its social and economic development progress much more quickly than it has done to date. Of course, I am talking about the tribe based in the Bay of Islands called Ngāti Hine. All of that I mention in the context of acknowledging the support that Te Rōroa gave Ngāti Hine towards its claim to seek iwi status, way back in the mid-1980s. That was a time when the bloodlines between the two tribes were recognised, and the aims of both were similar.

Today I take the opportunity to congratulate Te Rōroa on its achievement in that regard. It is only right that a formal apology and compensation be given by the Crown for its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The basis of the claim that this bill addresses relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and, in particular, the cession of land at Te Kōpuru in 1842, Crown land purchases from 1876 onwards, the operation and impact of native land laws, and the Crown’s failure to ensure that Te Rōroa retained sufficient land for its present and future needs.

Of course, we would not be here debating this bill in the House today if it were not for the support given by the people of Te Rōroa to the ratification of the settlement agreement. To that end, I again congratulate those people, some of whom are in the public gallery today, on their efforts. The leadership, commitment and courage of kaumātua and negotiators to reach the stage of accepting an apology and redress from the Crown for past Treaty breaches will allow the people of Te Rōroa to move on. In a way, it is also an acknowledgment that their history of loss and the impact of Crown decisions at the time can never be fully compensated for. It also acknowledges that in order to move forward and progress, the shackles of past injustices must be recognised and compensated for. I believe that this bill does that.

I am not aware of the ratification process involved in this particular settlement, but suffice it to say that I will certainly be seeking clarification of that during the select committee process. Should there have been any dissension from within the tribe, the select committee process will afford an opportunity for those dissenters to come forward and express their concerns to the committee. I say to them, some of whom may be present in the gallery or even listening to this debate, that by virtue of this House referring this bill to a select committee, they will have the opportunity to advise us as to the reasons for their non-participation. If their non-participation is related to any disagreement with the deed of settlement, the settlement itself, or the new governance bodies that will receive the proceeds of this settlement on behalf of the iwi, then we would certainly like to hear from them. I say those things because what has become a common concern, when hearing submissions on Treaty settlement bills, is the number of people who have not approved of particular settlements.

We do know that two governance entities have been established, Te Rōroa Manawhenua Trust and Te Rōroa Whatu Ora Trust, to receive and administer settlement redress and to receive and administer commercial redress properties respectively. The settlement is described in the bill as one of redress with an aggregate value of $9.5 million, and it covers the following: a cash payment of $77,000-odd, and cultural redress, which includes name alterations and name assignments. I just want to mention the alterations and assignments. In terms of alterations, Merowharara Stream is to be known as Mirowharara Stream; part of the Taitā Stream is to be known as Waitakuhuruhuru Stream; and the Waitapu Stream is to be known as the Ngāiore Stream. In terms of assignments, an unnamed stream is to be known as Mangatara Stream, an unnamed locality will be named Ōhae, and the mountain of Te Rōroa is to be recognised as Maunga Kairara.

In conclusion, I want to make some reference to the declaration of Te Tarehu. Te Tarehu acknowledges Te Rōroa’s association with the area and requires the Minister of Conservation and Te Rōroa to develop and publicise a set of principles that protect Te Rōroa’s values in relation to the management of the Waipoua Forest. The New Zealand Conservation Authority and the Northland Conservation Board will be required to have regard to those principles and to consult with the trustees of the Te Rōroa Manawhenua Trust. I want to make the point, in terms of that agreement, that I hope the principles are defined.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi taku mihi ki ōku whanaunga. Ahakoa kāore au e kitea e ōku whanaunga. He nui te aroha nui, te manaakitanga ki a rātou.

[The first thing is my acknowledgment to my relatives, even though they cannot see me. Much love and respect to them.]

I start by saying how disappointed I am that our whanaunga are not in the Speaker’s gallery. [Interruption] They are not in the Speaker’s gallery; they are in the public gallery, and therefore I apologise to them for speaking about the Te Rōroa Claims Settlement Bill with my back to them.

I start by saying that I am not going to dilly-dally or tiptoe around a number of issues. First, I congratulate Te Rōroa on their magnificent effort in getting the measly sum of $9 million. I say “measly sum” with respect to the whole process of Treaty settlements. I believe that the settlements we have reached previously have been measly entitlements. They have not been a representation of the true value of Treaty settlements. It was always one of the questions that my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and I had to work hard to come to grips with when we were in Government. I do not blame the present Government for that inequality. I do, however, blame the present Government for a number of things, and we will get there in a minute.

Hon Mark Burton: Of course you would.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, well, here we go. It is the “settlements by numbers” crew. It is the “Treaty settlements by numbers” party. I am amazed that in the last 7 to 8 years not one settlement has started under this Government. Negotiations have not started under this Government. I am appalled, even, to think back to the 1990s under Sir Douglas Graham. All the negotiations for the settlements that have been reached to this point were actually started with Sir Douglas Graham. What has this Government been doing for the last 7-odd years? Well, it has been letting the process get away from it. This Government does not know how to negotiate. Its members do not know how to sit down with people, talk over some issues, and get the process on the road.

Do members know why? It is because the Government does not have any negotiators in its crew, in its team. Even with the advent of Shane Jones, the Government still does not have the negotiating skills that are required to quickly settle Treaty settlements that tribes like Te Rōroa have been waiting for, for years and years. There is no experience in this team whatsoever. It never ceases to amaze me that when Treaty settlements come into this House, we have acknowledgment after acknowledgment. It is quite sickening to see some of the tiptoeing around these issues.

I want to mention Te Rōroa tribal area itself, the report that the tribunal put together, and the many research projects that have happened over the many, many years since the establishment or even getting the Wai number. They had a spin-off effect on a number of tribes and on a number of negotiations.

I want to pay due respect to my sister-in-law, who passed away in September, Yvonne Paraone-Kawiti. I give her some due for the assistance she gave to the people of the mid-north and to Te Rōroa, as well.

I also say that $9 million is not that much. We all realise that; we all have come to terms with that. I can say that the crew from Te Rōroa will use the $9 million wisely—and it is not all in cash. They will use the assets that have been given back, or settled on, in this settlement, and they will use them for the benefit of those people who tātai back to Te Rōroa.

I also acknowledge the comments made by my tuakana Pita Paraone, who said that Te Rōroa has around 3,000 members—I am sure there are more. He also said that Ngāti Hine seem to have between 15,000 and 25,000. Well, actually, it is more than 15,000 to 25,000. Out of the 100,000-odd people who have said they are of Ngāpuhi descent, 76,000 have said they are of Ngāti Hine descent. Seventy-six thousand! That is bigger than some other tribes—in fact, that is bigger than a whole lot of other tribes! But, hey, who is counting?

Hone Harawira: Te Rōroa.

Hon TAU HENARE: This is from the Māori Party; these comments are from the Māori Party. I want to pick up on what happened yesterday. Māori Party members went around the country telling people to go and occupy land because they cannot get any assistance out of the system. Well, let me ask the members of the Māori Party who will pay the fines and who will go to jail when those people end up in front of the court. Well, it will not be the Māori Party! It ain’t the Māori Party! It will be the people who take action. So I say to Mr Harawira that instead of interjecting on me, he should tell me who will pay the fines and who will do the time when those fullas go in front of the court. [Interruption] Uncle Pita says: “We are.” Well, I take his word for it.

But I digress. I want to say that Te Rōroa can be assured that the Māori Affairs Committee will do a sterling job, as it has done before, in taking this process to its finality and reporting back to this House so that a fast and good deal is done. In fact, I say to Te Rōroa that the select committee has already determined to travel to Dargaville to hear submissions from the hau kāinga next month.

I do not want to dwell too much on things today because this is the day when the bill has come to the House. It is the first stage of the last stage of the Treaty settlements. I do want to mention the despicable comments and the behaviour of Trevor Mallard in the House this afternoon when he referred to John McInteer as being nothing more than a Tory candidate. Let me tell the Minister and let me tell those members over there, who did not even stand up to defend the honour of John McInteer, that he is on the land in Whenuakite because of the lackadaisical and lacklustre performance by a number of the Ministers who sit now on the Labour side, and who have sat there for the last 7 years and twiddled their thumbs. Nothing has been done about it. Whenuakite has been there for a millennium, and so has Rangiputa, and not once in 7 years has a Government member thought it necessary to think: “Crikey, I’d better get up there and sort out a mess before some people take some action.” I do not condone illegal action, but sometimes the Crown pushes people far too much.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): He tika ake anō i runga i te tū nei ki te mihi ake anō i a koutou o Te Rōroa, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou mō te kaha rawa i roto i a koutou e tae kaha ake anō i konei mai i te wāhi o te ngahere, ngā wāhi pērā i a Te Kōpuru, ngā āhua pērā tonu, e mihi kau ana, tēnā koutou.

E whakahoki ake anō ōku whakaaro ki tērā rā i tae tahi ake anō tāua me tōku hoa mahi, a Mark Burton, i rō whare a te ngahere, e kite ake anō i te kaha rawa, te koi hoki, te tino kaha i roto i a koutou e manaaki ake anō o tāua, e tae ake anō i reira, hei oti ake anō i te kōrero mō tēnei mamae roaroa hoki.

Tō Te Tai Tokerau, mai i Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē e tae ake anō i te wāhi tata ake anō i a Whātua. E mihi kau ana i a kōrua. E Pita, me a koe e Hone, me tērā tino tangata upoko mārō, taku hoa rā e kōrero ake anō mō te kaitā hoki a Ngāti Hine, me tēnei tētahi o ngā tino tuakana pāpā o te Whare nei pērā i a Pita, a Dover.

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

[It is appropriate, as I rise, to acknowledge Te Rōroa as well: greetings to you. Your efforts to get here from Waipoua Forest, from places like Te Kōpuru, are acknowledged. Greetings to you.

I recall the time when fellow Minister the Hon Mark Burton and I visited you at Waipoua Forest and saw how industrious, sharp, and hospitable you were when we visited to discuss this lengthy and painful grievance.

Of the north from the Ninety Mile Beach to Whātua, I greet you, Pita, Hone, and that hard-headed colleague of Ngāti Hine, also Dover, one of the real elders of this House like Pita over there.]

I stand today to support the Te Rōroa Claims Settlement Bill. In so doing, I wish to congratulate Te Rōroa negotiators on their efforts in getting to this point. This bill gives effect to certain aspects of the deed of settlement that was signed by the Crown and Te Rōroa on 17 December 2005. The deed settles all the historical claims of Te Rōroa in Northland. The historical claims of Te Rōroa relate to a number of Crown acts and omissions in relation to the operation and impact of the Native Land Court process and Crown land-purchasing in the 1870s.

It is important to note that the deed sets out an agreed historical account and an acknowledgment of Crown breaches of the Treaty and its principles. The acknowledgments include: the failure of the Crown to deal with the repeatedly raised grievances of Te Rōroa in an appropriate way; the Crown’s process used to determine reparation for the plunder of a store in 1861, which led to the cession of land at Te Kōpuru; the Crown’s awarding of land to individuals of Te Rōroa rather than to the iwi or to hapū; the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions and omissions that have left Te Rōroa virtually landless; the alienation of Te Rōroa from their lands, which hindered their economic, social, and cultural development; and the separation of Te Rōroa from their wāhi tapu and taonga, which has been a source of great spiritual and emotional pain to Te Rōroa—ngā aureretanga o Te Rōroa.

The bill also includes a formal apology given by the Crown to Te Rōroa, and to their ancestors and descendants, for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown apologises for those acts and omissions, as well as for its failure to acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Te Rōroa. The acknowledgments, apologies, and agreed historical account contained in the settlement redress establish a platform for the Crown and Te Rōroa to build a relationship into the future, based on mutual trust and cooperation, and, over and above the settlement, will ensure that Crown agencies and services are built stronger and longer than before. In recognition of Te Rōroa’s historical, cultural, and spiritual association with places and sites within their area of interest, the settlement also includes the vesting of 25 sites of cultural and spiritual significance.

The settlement is conditional upon the establishment of an appropriate governance entity to receive and manage the settlement redress. Te Rōroa has also established a second trust, Te Rōroa Whatu Ora Trust, which has a commercial focus and will receive and administer the commercial redress properties. This settlement will go some way in assisting Te Rōroa to establish an economic base for themselves.

Concluding settlements like this one is important for Māori. Currently, 20 groups are actively engaged with the Office of Treaty Settlements, and three heads of agreements in principle have been reached with a number of claimant groups. [Interruption] At times it is too easy for people who are in Opposition for a period of time, and who will remain in Opposition, to cite what they would do—like what they suggested at Ōrewa. Yesterday I concluded a settlement like this one. Yesterday I was fortunate to be in Wanganui, where I finished off and signed on behalf of the Crown an on account historical Treaty settlement with representatives of Whanganui iwi. It will provide Whanganui iwi with ownership of the Wanganui courthouse and the land it sits on. I think that is incredible, in the sense of it having taken 12 years to achieve that, because that lot on the other side of the House did nothing—zip! It was a great day—a historic day. I have to agree with this morning’s Wanganui Chronicle: “The iwi were in a joyful mood.” And there are things to celebrate, when one does not sit and chastise other people, be reckless with one’s tongue, and skite about the size of one’s iwi. I know that Ngāti Hine is a great iwi. As this Government continues to make strong progress in resolving Treaty grievances, I expect to see more occasions like this, and they will happen quickly.

I want to talk about Hauraki. Having been at the land march, having gone to Waitangi for 35 years, and having gone to the koroneihana for 35 years, I can say I have never ever seen those two members there, even in recent times. I am sorry; I have seen Georgina there. I have seen Hone Harawira behave in a dastardly fashion, and I have seen Pita Paraone behave in a greatly receptive fashion. Hone Harawira has now grown into doing that, and I relish and celebrate that from my former workmate Hone—I really do. I used to remember when protestors went there with stones in bottles and rolled them on the ground so those damned National Ministers would fall over, because they would not make decisions. The National members never make decisions. They say one thing out of one side of the mouth—things about the Māori seats or whatever else—then dream and make-believe about what they would do to make things better for Māoridom. They never do anything.

In relation to Hauraki, I say I, my colleague Dr Burton, and Minister Mahuta met with the Hauraki iwi for over 4 hours, because they were having issues with their mandate. John McEnteer was there and Paul Majurey was there; so were those rangatira who are right in the middle. It was great that they talked about it. After we help them to get their mandate, we will do the business. We will make sure that we do the business. We will not sit here and prattle like reckless cattle, as National does; it tries to make out that it will do everything for Māori, and it makes policy on the hoof. It is outrageous how the National Party wants to treat Māori.

I will tell the House about when we rode into Te Rōroa. It is a beautiful place. There is a marae there, and a koroua was there—80-plus; he might even have been 90-plus—and he said he wanted us to hurry up, because he wanted to go down and have a bit of nectar. The other great thing was that the kids were all up in the trees. It is a beautiful place. In case Georgina te Heuheu has never been there, I tell her that it is a wonderful place. Those people’s tīpuna were there and they live there. They do not live in urban Auckland, which is a great place, too. [Interruption]

I remind the member Tau Henare that when he was the Minister of Māori Affairs, I used to go fishing with him on Thursday nights. I used to give him top-quality advice, and he would not listen to me. He went down outside Te Papa, and he fished—

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

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

Hon Tau Henare: I will be guided by you, Madam Assistant Speaker, as to whether it is. But can I tell members that the advice that I got was not very good, because I did not catch anything.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That probably was not a point of order, but never mind.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I caught more fish than him. And I knew more about Māoridom than he ever did, because most of my staff were Māori—Hone Harawira was one of them, and he was a great operator, as were a whole lot of other people. But I want to mihi to Tau, I want to mihi to Ngāti Hine, and I thank Te Rōroa for being strong and forthright—

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just find it disturbing, and I would ask whether it is right, for the speakers who have spoken so far on this bill to turn this Parliament into such a fishy place.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Well, that probably was not a point of order, either.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There is only one person in this world who is able to divide bread and feed the multitudes with fish, and it is not Tau Henare—even though he thinks that it is. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora rā. Hei kōrero tuatahi, e ōku whanaunga Tau, Parekura, kaua e kōhetehete mai. Anei te reo o te Pāti Māori. Tēnā tātou katoa. Hei tīmatangia ai taku kōrero, anei te reo o Māori Marsden.

[Thank you, indeed. To start off, I say to my relatives Tau and Parekura, do not squabble. This is the Māori Party speaking. Greetings to us all. To preface my address, here is the voice of Māori Marsden.]

Tū mai, Tāne Māhuta, tū mai rā. Nō nehe rā anō koe te uri whakahirahira, nō tua whakarere iho koe. Kōrerotia mai ngā taonga, ngā whakatapuranga i piki ai koutou ki te teiteitanga o te rangi, hei whakaruruhau mō te ngāherehere.

Stand tall, Tāne Māhuta, stand tall, as you have done for aeons of time. For you are the impressive descendant from the beginning of Aotearoa. Tell us of the treasures and the blessing upon you all, why you climbed up so high to the sky to shelter the forest.

In the heart of the Waipoua stands Tāne Māhuta, lord of the forest and the largest remaining kauri in all of Aotearoa. At 52 metres tall and 1,200 years old, this giant of the forest holds huge spiritual significance for the people of Te Rōroa, Ngāti Kawa, Ngāti Whiu, and Te Kuihi ngā uri whakaheke o Manumanu, o Rangitauwāwaro, ā, me mihi au ki a rātou kua tatū mai i tēnei rā. E tewhānau, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Te Rōroa, Ngāti Kawa, Ngāti Whiu, Te Kuihi descendants of Manumanu, and Rangitauwāwaro today, whose presence I acknowledge. Greetings to you the family, greetings, greetings, and greetings to us all].

E ōku whanaunga, I greet in this time of change—this time of possibility—but it is also a time when this House needs to be reminded of the historical destruction of Te Rōroa’s economic base, the denial of Te Rōroa’s access to their traditional mahinga kai, and the threat to Te Rōroa’s spiritual connection to the Waipoua itself.

E ōku whanaunga, I greet also with the words of Judge Acheson—of all people—who stated, in 1942: “The circumstances of this case … cry aloud for redress … The … reserves are theirs and should be returned to them, no matter what cost to the Crown this may involve.” I ask how it can be that it took 65 years for this matter to come before the House—or indeed, as Georgina te Heuheu has pointed out, 165 years since claims against breaches of the Treaty were first raised by the people of Te Rōroa. As with all other settlements that the Crown insists be concluded for less than 3 percent of the value of the claim, this House is again bearing witness to a people of deep history and connection to the land being asked to accept an imposed settlement.

I will remind the House that the Waitangi Tribunal found clearly that the Crown used unfair methods to purchase Te Rōroa lands, that the Crown failed to make proper provision for native reserves, and that the Crown persisted—as it has in every other Treaty settlement—in ignoring the true depth and breadth of Te Rōroa’s grievances. The tribunal, in 1992, recommended that all Crown purchases of the Maunganui, Waipoua, Waimamaku, and Wairau lands be returned to Te Rōroa, but we see that today’s bill delivers considerably less, effectively leaving Te Rōroa virtually landless, as the Minister of Māori Affairs himself has said.

The tribunal report also recognised the massive impact of the alienation of Te Rōroa from their lands and how much this has hindered their economic, social, and cultural development. I draw the House’s attention to the lengthy and decidedly criminal separation of Te Rōroa from those lands, from those places, and from those practices that have sustained them over the centuries. I refer here to places like Manuwhētai, Whāngaiariki, Maunganui Bluff, Kawerua, Waipoua, Kaharau, Tarairē, Taharoa, and Kaiiwi—some of the primary and tribal markers of Te Rōroa; those places wherein lie the history, the honour, the well-being, and, indeed, the future of Te Rōroa. Along with my whanaunga, I too mourn the alienation and outright loss of many of those vital heritage areas through land theft, improper land sales, legislative acquisition, settlement, local body development, expensive beachfront housing subdivision, exotic forestry, and private farmland.

But worse than this loss of land has been the fate of human remains and sacred objects acquired by private collectors and museums for the voyeuristic and commercial exploitation of a people’s culture. The handling and mishandling, the studying and probing, the dissection and division by scientists, archaeologists, doctors, lawyers, anthropologists, and all those other “Raiders of the Lost Ark” are acts that we associate with the name Te Rōroa-ngā aureretanga o Te Rōroa—the continuous crying of the people of Te Rōroa.

The Māori Party recognises the history of violation of Te Rōroa’s taonga through the actions and lack of action of the Crown, and the denial to the people Te Rōroa of the benefits of development enjoyed by other New Zealanders. We also recognise the fact that if an unfair settlement is imposed in 2007 it will surely be revisited by future generations. We commend the strength, the commitment, and the courage of the people of Te Rōroa in pursuing justice, but we recognise also a negotiations process drafted by the Crown, and the Crown, alone based on false faith and double-talk. It is a negotiations process that masquerades as being fair and reasonable in the circumstances but which, in fact, is anything but, and an empty insistence by the Crown that all settlements be full and final—an insistence that will haunt this Chamber long after it is cleared.

In this seeming endgame I raise one outstanding issue—the Crown’s continued refusal to properly deal with the area known as Kaharau. It is a burning issue that succeeding generations will surely continue to pursue until proper resolution has been reached. When the Government’s draftsmen originally drew up sale plans in 1875, without even going to Waimamaku, and without any discussion whatsoever with local rangatira, two blocks—Kaharau and Tarairē—were not set aside as reserves and were included in sale arrangements without the approval of Te Rōroa, and contrary to their wishes. Indeed, plans submitted to the Native Land Court by the Government surveyor clearly show that both Tarairē and Kaharau were outside the area of land for sale. Yet with all that information, and evidence from experts both Māori and Pākehā, here we are, 132 years later, with the Government still refusing to provide redress for the theft of Kaharau.

In the light of all this, I regret to remind the House that an apology and a return of less than 3 percent of the claim value pepper-potted throughout the tribal homeland of Te Rōroa will simply not suffice. I do not expect Te Rōroa to put off current arrangements in pursuit of a more just settlement. Te Rōroa have waited long enough. At the first hearing of this claim, the late Māori Marsden said: “We the living are the whatu-ora, the living, seeing eyes of our sleeping ancestors. We are ngā tukutukungā-iho, literally those that follow on.” The Māori Party recognises the courage, the commitment, the advocacy, the dedication, and the sheer bloody-minded determination of the whānau, who have been in negotiation for the last 15 years since the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1992. We stand alongside Te Rōroa in watching over the process of the legislation being tabled today, as we will also stand alongside those who follow on—those who will follow this process until justice has finally been done. Kia ora tātou katoa.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of Te Rōroa Claims Settlement Bill. I need to say from the beginning that United Future does not enjoy representation on the select committee that will be hearing submissions on this bill, so we will be looking for ongoing guidance and advice from committee members on this matter. We also understand that by the time a settlement bill reaches this House, a lot of hard work has been done, and a lot of negotiations have gone on for years and years involving some very remarkable people. We support and congratulate them on the efforts they have taken to bring us to this place.

Firstly, the bill identifies those who are able to identify themselves as Te Rōroa, today and historically. It is a final settlement of historical claims where those claims are breaches of the Treaty and breaches of common law. I think that many Pākehā people often fail to understand that these settlement claims are not just about breaches of the Treaty, but they are also about breaches of common law as we understand it, and that is why this process is so important.

This settlement bill contains six acknowledgments by the Crown. Firstly, the Crown acknowledges the failure to be responsive to historical complaints for generation after generation. Secondly, in this bill, the Crown acknowledges the poor process that led to the cession of land. Also, it acknowledges the taking possession of land without having done a proper survey of it; the undermining of the collective ownership of iwi land; the reduction of land resources due to Crown action, and Crown inaction, that impoverished these people; and the separation of these people from wāhi tapu and from their precious and sacred taonga. As well, the bill sets out a formal apology from the Crown for breaches of the Treaty and it expresses the Crown’s desire to atone for this.

What is interesting in this bill is the fact that it has some very forward-looking provisions that establish a process by which protocols can be established into the future to ensure a better interface between Government departments and the trustees of the Te Rōroa Manua Whenua Trust. It sees 15 properties of cultural significance vested in the trustees of the trust and nine forest properties that are also of significance vested in the trust.

Provisions are included to make sure that traditional cultural values are clearly defined and enshrined in an agreed upon set of principles that guide and constrain the management styles of the Waipoua Forest and two statutory reserves. This also includes a requirement to consult on consent applications. There are also, as is common with settlement bills, some place names that are either amended or assigned at the request of the people who bring this bill before us today. United Future is very happy to support the first reading of this bill and we look forward to its ongoing passage.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State): I am always amazed when Māori issues come before the House at how remarkable the debate becomes. When I listen to the contributions of my Māori colleagues I wonder whether the Māori Wars have actually passed. Are we still involved in that kind of warfare? I certainly hope we do not blame Te Rōroa for the kind of warfare that may go on between us Māori colleagues. It is remarkable indeed when I hear my friend the Hon Mark Burton being referred to as the doctor. Some people might say he is a witch doctor, but never mind about that; he was referred to as the doctor, and if he accepts that promotion, kei te pai.

Then, of course, my whanaunga on the other side Tau Henare apologised to our whānau Te Rōroa that he had his back turned to them. Well, sometimes one does not recognise which is one’s front and which is one’s back. The reality is that he is sitting on the other side of the House, which shows us very clearly that he is on the wrong side. For me, I am addressing our whānau from Te Rōroa kanohi ki te kanohi—eyeball to eyeball—and there they are before us. I have no problems with that, at all.

It is always remarkable when we are talking about Māori issues that we do not stray off the issues, the subject, and the wairua of the bills that we are here to debate.

Ko te mea nui kē ki ahau i tēnei wā, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou ngā whānau. Kei te maumahara ki tēnā o ngā kaumātua a Ned, tō tātou rangatira. I te wā i a ia e tū mataara ana, e hautū ana, e hāpai ana i tēnei kaupapa. Ko ia, rātou katoa ētahi o ngā rangatira o ngā whānau me ngā kuikuia kua huri atu ki muri o te ārai. Ko rātou ngā kaipoipoi o tēnei kaupapa, kore rātou e warewaretia e tātou. Nō reira, koutou ngā rangatira kua whetūrangitia, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai i roto i te ringa kaha o tō tātou Kaihanga.

Ngā mihi hoki katoa ki a Hāmi, tēnei o ngā whanaunga, e Pita nāu nei te mihi aroha ki a ia, e mighty Alex, tēnā kōrua. Tēnā kōrua me ngā tūāhine, me ngā whaea kia kaha, kia manawanui mai. Kite atu ana au ki a koutou e katakata mai ana, e whakamīharo ana ki ngā whakawhitiwhititanga kōrero i roto o tēnei Whare hurihuri. Nō reira, kei te mihi whānui atu ki a koutou katoa

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

[The significant thing for me at this time is to greet you, the families. I think about our chief and elder Ned when he was alive. He drove and carried this matter. He has passed on as have other elders, womenfolk, and chiefs of the families who nurtured this matter. They will not be forgotten. And so to you who have crossed the divide, sleep, slumber, rest there in the powerful hand of the Creator.

Acknowledgments also to this one of the relatives Hāmi; Pita, you mentioned him in your tribute; you too, mighty Alex, greetings to you two and to the sisters, aunties, be strong and stout hearted. I noticed how the exchanges in this House amused and awed you. And so a huge tribute to you all.]

It is important that we focus on the event and the bill before us and on the need to progress the discussions in terms of the wairua and the spirit in which the deed has been put together. Let me say at the outset that there is no way in the world that we can compensate Te Rōroa for the injustice and the hurt put upon them. I think we recognise all that in this Parliament. There is no way in the world that we can compensate. There is no way in the world that apologies will be able to take the place of the injustice and the hurt that has been made to our people. When this Parliament starts saying that the Crown will apologise, that we will compensate with land that may be available, and that we will give back to our people tino rangatiratanga in the way they know how to administer their fisheries, their lands, and their forests, it must say that in all humbleness, because that is not true justice.

If, in fact, those types of injustices happened today, in this civilised society, I wonder what our so-called lawyers would be saying in regard to some form of compensation? Let us think about it. If those injustices took place now—if thousands of tracts of lands were stolen and people were killed or murdered in terms of the acquisition of those lands—what, really, would be the penalty, the compensation, in today’s terms? I put forward the challenge to members of this House that no constitution or law would be competent in terms of analysing and putting forward an answer to that scenario I have just painted. The difference is that it is not happening now—but it happened some time ago, and it certainly happened to the whānau and hapū of Te Rōroa. Let me say again that we can never compensate for the injustices that affected our whānau of Te Rōroa.

But Te Rōroa have generosity of spirit and wairua. One of the icons we have in Tai Tokerau—and in Northland and New Zealand—is the Waipoua Forest. In terms of my portfolio as Associate Minister of Tourism let me say that thousands and thousands of people from all parts of the world visit Waipoua Forest, and they stand before the majesty of Tāne Māhuta amazed and in awe. They look at the beauty of that forest and they get shown it and told stories by the people who have a relationship with that forest, such as Te Rōroa. Those visitors go away with a memory they will never ever forget. I acknowledge that even though this bill gives back the fee simple ownership to the people of Te Rōroa, they never really relinquished their mana over their ngahere. Yet they have opened the doors to and the tracks of that icon to the people of the world. Day after day, week after week, buses bring our manuhiri from all parts of the planet to view Waipoua Forest and Tāne Māhuta. This is the type of generosity that I am speaking about.

I do not want to take too much time in regard to some of the peripherals that have been debated in this House, such as how many Treaty settlements have been made or who has made the Treaty settlements—whether it is National, the Māori Party, Mauri Pacific, or Labour, who cares? But once the issue comes before this House, lets us get on with it and acknowledge the truth, the pain, and the wairua of the people who were actually affected by those past events, because no money and no apology will be able to compensate for that. I want to make that very clear, because I believe that some people from all around this House think that because they get up and say they are sorry, that is adequate compensation. Well, I suggest to those people that they had better think again. Quite clearly, they are not in touch with the reality of the issues.

Hoi anō me mutu ake wāku nei wāhi pitopito nei i konei ki a tātou katoa ngā mema Māori, kei te tautoko atu i te whakatau o tēnei o ngā whānau, kei te mihi atu. Tātou katoa e mōhio ana, kei te maha rātou kua huri atu ki muri o te ārai, kei te haere tonu, kei te haere tonu, kei te tārewa tonu ētahi o ngā kaupapa, ngā kerēma, engari ko te mea nui, me whakakotahi tātou ō tātou whakaaro, o tahi kaupapa i raro o tēnei tono a tēnei o ō tātou whānau, hapū Te Rōroa. Nō reira, kei te mihi whānui atu ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou katoa.

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

[However, I must end my little contributions to this debate here, and to all of us Māori members, I support the claim by this branch of the family and congratulate them. We all know that many have passed on and that this situation will continue, that some claims have been suspended, but the most important thing is for us to be united and of one mind in respect of this claim of one of our families and subtribe Te Rōroa. So I extend a huge greeting to you all: greetings, greetings and greetings to us all.]

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I apologise to my colleagues for interrupting the flow of the debate, but I am sure, given some of the comments made earlier, that members would not want to continue perpetuating inadvertently misleading the House. I therefore seek leave to table the list of 18 negotiations commenced since November 1999, when this Government took office. Eighteen mandates have been recognised, two of which have actually had complete negotiations through to settlement.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I want to say to Mr Samuels, who has just spoken in the debate, that I endorse much of what he said in his speech, and I can assure him that that is the spirit in which the Māori Affairs Committee will look at this bill. I can also assure him that there is a great deal of enthusiasm—as my friend Mr Henare would say: “Get on with the job.” Indeed, I think we have booked our flights to Dargaville for 4 April. So I can assure him that we are going to get on to it, notwithstanding that in the first reading speeches there is some discord. That is because some things need to be said about the Treaty settlements process. But we will certainly work as a team on this legislation and get it back to the House, as the Minister has requested, within 3 months.

As my friends on the National Party side have said, we support the first reading of the Te Rōroa Claims Settlement Bill. It records acknowledgments and the apology given by the Crown in the 17 December 2005 deed of settlement, and gives effect to the deed of settlement, which is the final settlement itself. We will go through the legislation very carefully in the Māori Affairs Committee, cut to the chase, and get it back to the House.

I begin by offering my congratulations to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mark Burton, because until the Minister of Māori Affairs spoke I was unaware that Mark Burton had a doctorate. I am sure it is an honorary doctorate in prevarication and bewilderment, and I would be interested to know whether he will use the term part time as in Dr Jekyll, or full time as in Dr Cullen. Both terms are equally frightening.

I do need to say something about the history of the claim. I always enjoy Treaty settlement bills, because for one thing I find it is a very good historical exercise to go through the preamble and see the background to the claim. In the case of the Ngāti Mutunga claims settlement legislation, pretty horrific events in New Zealand’s past are recounted, and it shows the reason we need to have Treaty settlement legislation. But the history of the claim here is pretty unimpressive.

Between 1987 and 1990 the claims were lodged in the Waitangi Tribunal. I checked the records; it is Wai 38. But what is interesting is that the Ngāi Tahu claim was Wai 27. The deed of settlement for Ngāi Tahu was signed on 21 November 1997, the settlement legislation was pushed through the House under the Bolger and Shipley administrations, and Georgina te Heuheu was in the select committee overseeing the committee stages at that stage. So between 1987 and 1990 claims were lodged. The report was provided to the claimants and the Ministry of Māori Affairs on 3 April 1992. Then there were discussions through the 1990s.

Something seems to have gone wrong between 1999 and 2005, because negotiations seem to have been conducted at an absolute snail’s pace. Then on 17 December 2005 the deed of settlement was signed. In my opinion, that is a timetable, a chronology, that shows that very little energy and enthusiasm has gone into the resolution of this matter. That is partly why the Māori Affairs Committee will cut to the chase and really deal with this thing as quickly as it can, because that is what the people deserve.

Just the other day I was reading a speech given by Douglas Graham, a former Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, which was dated August 1997. That was in the good old days when we had a real Minister who was not a slave to process but a real leader, who was genuinely concerned to achieve just and durable settlements as quickly as possible. He outlined the background to how we got to the Treaty settlement process, then he said that sometimes people say that these things are all too hard and that we should just go back and play football.

I will read this great man’s speech for the record of the House: “It cannot be done. It just cannot be done. So we need patience and we need tolerance as a society. We need a maturity of outlook. We need to know what it is we are trying to do”—members should listen to this—“and a time frame hopefully showing how best to do it as best we can, with all the problems. And we have to understand and accept that this period, which appears divisive as people come up to speed on both sides, is difficult. Nobody doubts that. But it is a period that is divisive and it will end in the first decade of the next century and the next millennium. If—God willing—we can put the sadnesses of the past behind us, get Māori into development mode instead of grievance mode, they will no longer have to pass the grievance on to another generation yet again.”

In closing, Doug Graham expressed the hope that this country had more chance of resolving these matters fairly, quickly, and calmly than any other country in the world, as well. He said in conclusion: “But we have got to take that up, and there will be moments when you get very annoyed and angry and frustrated. So do I, because I’m the one who has to sell it. So if you get angry, multiply it by 10 and that is me. But I have got to say: ‘Look, I am not listening to that nonsense. What we want to do is get these things resolved and move ahead. That’s what we’re going to do. We’re not giving up when the going gets a bit tough, because that is the sign of a great political party.’ ”

I ask the House to compare that practical idealism from an outstanding New Zealander with the approach of this Minister, who is responsible for this legislation, and the shambles that the Government has got into in recent days over Whenuakite Station. It is simply unacceptable. I make a solemn commitment to all Māori and to this House that a Key administration will re-energise the settlement process and bring to it the same practical idealism of the National Party in the 1990s.

The Minister should be disgusted that it has taken this legislation so long to come back to the House. He cannot be impressed with what he has done, but we will get on to it. [Interruption] In the Minister’s 7 years, he and his predecessor should be disgusted with their lack of performance.

We support his legislation, but it needs to be noted that the performance of this Government is lamentable. We started the process, this Government has mucked around—and a Key administration is going to finish it properly.

SHANE JONES (Labour): Ā, tēnā koe e Whakahaere nei i ō tātou kōrero i roto i tēnei ahiahi. Me mihi anō ki ahau ki ngā huanga i ahu mai nei i roto o Waipoua, i roto i Te Rōroa, ki roto i Te Tai Tokerau, ka tau mai ki roto i tēnei Whare hei mātakitaki i tēnei pire e whāia haeretia ana i roto i ngā kokorutanga o te Whare nei. Nā reira, e te whānau nau mai, piki mai, kake mai, haere mai.

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

[So greetings to you, Madam Speaker, in our debate this afternoon. Of course I must also acknowledge the relatives who came here from within Waipoua, Te Rōroa, and North Auckland to this House to observe this bill being bandied about in the nooks and crannies of this House. So to you, the family, welcome, clamber up, draw up, welcome.]

Given that these discussions sit upon the pages that record our nation’s history in this legislature, first I want to name Mr Ned Nathan, who is a fantastic, celebrated member of the Māori Battalion. He was severely wounded on the island of Crete and was cared for by the partisans and eventually married off to a Cretan woman belonging to the family who saved this great leader of the Tai Tokerau. He was a man who was present at and witnessed the death of the greatest Ngāpuhi warrior ever in World War I and World II, Harding Leaf.

I want that man’s name, Mr Eruera Nathan, to be mentioned, because he retired back to Northland in his senior years and took up the challenge left behind by his grandmother Pīpīwharauroa and the elders of the Te Rōroa tribe, who had all drifted off into the mist. He decided he would make it his life’s work to settle the historic grievances surrounding the Waipoua Forest and two particularly important sacred sites, Whāngaiariki and Manuwhētai, which lie under the shadow of the ancestral mountain of Maunganui located on the west coast of Tai Tokerau. We need to recite our history when we affirm the qualities underlying our settlements, so that children in the future are able to bear witness to the fact that this generation sought to do the best it could to honour the aspirations of the people gone on.

I mentioned two sacred sites, Manuwhētai and Whāngaiariki. They had the misfortune of being located in property that at one time was owned by Mr Allan Titford. I take us back to the late 1980s when the Labour Government of that time wrestled with how to protect those sites that had disappeared into private ownership. I, my own mentor—my whanaunga Hone Harawira—and Reverend Māori Marsden went with the Te Rōroa people and blessed a pouwhenua, which was really a signifier of history, and the affection with which the elders of Te Rōroa regarded those two sites. Unfortunately, that pouwhenua fell victim to vandalism.

But I recall very clearly that when the pouwhenua was put in the ground, the lizards, the caretakers in Māori lore of that which is sacred, came out of the ground. In addition to that, this settlement, as my colleague Mr Dover Samuels has said, will never completely erase the sense of sadness and grievance, because this generation is fiscally incapable of redeeming the entire bill of colonisation. But Te Rōroa live in an area that has grown in significance as we as a country treat more carefully and respectfully our scarce resources. I refer here to the Waipoua Forest, which holds the taniwha rākau, the great kauri trees, remnants of a fantastic past that Aotearoa saw. Those attract visitors from afar, and they also attract many New Zealanders.

So this claim as it is settled cannot and must not be conceived just in fiscal terms. It implants the name of Te Rōroa on the faces of our formal written history. It recognises their ancestral connections, and it leaves them with a small and, hopefully, carefully husbanded resource of $9 million to $10 million with associated concessions, so that they can take this taonga, this pūtea, and grow a base that will allow this small tribe to grow in pride, rekindle its culture, and recover its history, because Māori history is located in great spades in the area of Te Rōroa. We, the northern members of this House—including my whanaunga there, Tau Henare—descend from the eponymous ancestor, Tōhē. Tōhē gave his name to Ninety Mile Beach—Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē—and he perished at Maringinoa, slightly north of Maunganui Bluff. These areas are within the ambit of the Te Rōroa claim, and it is pleasing to see that heritage, respect for history, and a desire to bolster identity by affirming the qualities that cannot be captured with money, lie at the core of this claim. That work will outlive us, the current members of this House. That is what makes Treaty settlements worthwhile doing, beyond the inevitable squabbles about the adequacy of land and the sufficiency of money.

Te Rōroa derive their name from a saying: anō rā te rōroa o ngā koroi i te kahikatea—there lies the length of the koroī and the kahikatea—a people who were hardy, pursued by their Ngāpuhi relations and their Ngāti Whātua relations. Indeed, the greatest battle between the Ngāpuhi tribe and the Ngāti Whātua tribe, prior to the arrival of muskets, was at Mōremonui, the site where the Te Rōroa people are currently based. On one side Taohō, the undisputed leader of Ngāti Whātua, and on the other, Dover’s mātua, Hongi Hika and Hongi Hika’s father and uncles. This is the stuff of which New Zealand’s indigenous identity is made. It should be recited and recollected as we move forward—not only as we put the settlements into place and our history behind us, but as we celebrate that history, so that the new identity of Te Rōroa is something that enriches the overall identity of Aotearoa.

I commend the work that will be done by the select committee. I hope they go where I went with Doug Kidd in 1991, when this report was actually issued. I had only just returned from the Kennedy School in the United States when Doug Kidd asked me to go along with him for the presentation of the report to the Te Rōroa people—where our kaumātua Lovey Te Rore had a heart attack by the front door. He was rescued, inevitably, by one of the medical students there. These are the things of our history.

In addition, it is sad and there are areas for improvement because our settlements are taking far too long. They take too long because of the difficulties of mandate on our Māori side, and also because we need to find a more efficient way of using the resources of not only the iwi but the Government itself. When Treaty settlements compete for resources there is an inevitable compromise. However, ka nui ēnei kōrero mō tēnei wā.

[This is enough for now.]

I stand to acknowledge the work of the Te Rōroa people, few though they may be, and all of the elders who initiated this work who have now gone on. I wish to the mokopuna and the tamariki, “God speed.” Kia ora tātou katoa.

Bill read a first time.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Rōroa Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 June 2007, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.

Statutes Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Statutes Amendment Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As members will be aware, the Statutes Amendment Bill is useful for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed.

I thank all the parliamentary parties for their consideration of the amendments proposed for the bill, and for expressing their support for the amendments included within the bill itself. I also thank those who have provided feedback on the process for obtaining cross-party support. This feedback has been valuable in the development of the process that we will use for the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). I acknowledge the splendid work of the various officials coordinating the administrative aspects of the bill, in respect of the development of the bill.

Hon Member: Oh, quite splendid!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am glad the member opposite concurs. The bill introduces amendments to 50 Acts administered in 17 different departments. The proposed amendments include—and I will touch on just a few—the amendment to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, which empowers District Court judges and other specified court officials to authorise the use, when executing certain warrants under the Act, of facsimile copies of the warrants in question.

The amendment to the Gas Act 1992 ensures that regulations can be made covering all the parties necessary to give effect to gas customer switching. This amendment will enable the development of a more effective gas switching regime.

The amendments to the Racing Act 2003 relate to the nomination of an advisory panel. The panel recommends to the Minister for Racing three persons for appointment to the New Zealand Racing Board. The amendment permits a suitably qualified substitute member to serve on the panel when a member prescribed by the Act is unable to attend.

The amendment to the Biosecurity Act 1993 provides that inspectors, in conducting inspections of a transitional facility or a biosecurity control area to determine whether risk goods are present, may seize unauthorised goods, along with the risk goods, if unauthorised goods are found. Risk goods are goods that may harbour harmful organisms, while unauthorised goods include imported goods that have not been declared, or goods that have been cleared using misleading or fraudulent documents. This amendment will simplify an inspector’s powers to seize non-risk unauthorised goods.

The amendments to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 make clear that references to a salesperson include persons engaged, as well as those employed, by a real estate agent. The amendment makes it clear that licensed real estate agents must retain custody of certificates of approval for every salesperson working for them, including the majority of salespersons who are independent contractors.

To conclude, the examples of amendments I have mentioned that are included in the bill demonstrate the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill as a vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): A fascinating insight into the Statutes Amendment Bill was offered by the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove. As he has said, no fewer than 50 statutes are to be amended by this bill. I will talk for just a moment about the policy behind this type of legislation, then look at two examples, one of which is of concern to the National Party—though I am bound to say that it generally supports this legislation.

The Statutes Amendment Bill, of course, is the archetypal omnibus bill. It consists entirely of amendments to other Acts of Parliament, including provisions, as we see here, that repeal other Acts. Unlike other bills, provisions are included in a Statutes Amendment Bill only if all other party spokespersons on a subject have indicated beforehand that they agree to the inclusion of the clause in the bill. That does not mean, of course, that all of the provisions will inevitably be passed, because any member still has the right to object to a clause in a Statutes Amendment Bill at the Committee stage. In such a case the clause is struck out of the bill. That arrangement is intended to enforce the longstanding convention that a clause in a Statutes Amendment Bill that is objected to will be withdrawn.

I note that a select committee—in this case, the Government Administration Committee, if this bill passes the next stage—considering a Statutes Amendment Bill can, with unanimous agreement, add clauses to the bill amending Acts not already amended by the bill as introduced.

I will now pick up two particular provisions that are contained in this legislation. The first is in respect of the Cook Islands Act of 1915. This is interesting legislation in constitutional terms because the Cook Islands Act is significant legislation. It was passed in 1915 when we had two Houses in our Parliament, the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council. We also had a Governor, not a Governor-General. Even today the constitutional curiosity continues that the realm of New Zealand includes the Cook Islands, but in addition to the Governor-General having responsibilities in respect of the realm, we nevertheless have in the Cook Islands a Queen’s Representative.

In any event, 14 years earlier than 1915, in 1901, the Governor proclaimed the Cook Islands as part of New Zealand. If one looks at the principal Act one sees that it ran for many pages. Much of the material has been repealed. The Act covered things like island councils, which were like the High Court—the Supreme Court of New Zealand, as it was called. It dealt with criminal offences, the law of evidence, extradition, Crown land, native succession, adoption of children by natives, marriage, and provisions relating to criminal lunatics. Now we see, in Part 11 of this Statutes Amendment Bill, a number of other changes being made. First, a raft of statutes are repealed. Second, a significant number of regulations—3 pages of them, in fact—are revoked.

I just focus on one of the changes in clause 36(2). That subclause relates to the plan to repeal the definition of “Asiatic”. That change seems to be somewhat unusual, but in section 2 of the Cook Islands Act 1915 “Asiatic” was defined in the following way: “ ‘Asiatic’ means a person belonging to any of the Asiatic races (other than the Jewish race), and includes a half-caste and a person intermediate in blood between a half-caste and a person of pure descent from those races:”. Clearly, it is hugely appropriate that that definition should vanish from the statute book, and National would support that particular amendment.

But I am bound to say that we are much less keen on those changes that are planned to be made to the Public Audit Act in Part 36 of the bill, with particular reference to services in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. What is happening here is very unusual, I would suggest. The position is that in our Standing Orders, under Appendix B, Part 2, there are elaborate provisions for a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament to be maintained. In fact, just in the last few days it has been an obligation on all MPs to make returns of their pecuniary interests, on a special form provided by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests, to that office.

In Standing Order 15, forming part of Appendix B, there are detailed provisions for the Auditor-General’s review and inquiry. Not content with that, it seems, it is proposed that there be a new section 19A, which will give to the Auditor-General wide-ranging and wholly unnecessary powers to perform services in relation to that Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. I give notice to the Government that, certainly from my perspective, National would not support legislation that would give to the Auditor-General power to examine on oath, power to enter and break down the doors of premises, and a raft of ancillary powers that are surely not necessary for MPs, who are honourable members.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): It is good for the Māori Party to be able to come to this House and feel that its members have been consulted on this legislation, and that their concerns have been taken into account. As a consequence we are happy to support the bill going forward.

During the consultation process and the kōrero leading up to the tabling of this Statutes Amendment Bill we identified points of concern and potential controversy associated with 10 of the 62 different Acts originally proposed for inclusion in this bill. Of those initial 10 Acts, we note that our concerns around six of the amendments have been considered to be of sufficient bearing to require that the amendments be removed from the bill being discussed today.

With regard to the Fisheries Acts, I note just for the record that some of our more substantial concerns were to do with amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, and the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. It is important for this House to know that our concerns around the proposed changes to fishing quotas and the effect of registering settlement quota interests against quota shares fall within the wider concerns related to the rights of tangata whenua to be consulted. The explanatory notes of the amendments to the Fisheries Act advised that people with a direct interest in the amendments had been consulted and were in support of them. But our interest was piqued when we never heard back from the Minister or his office after we asked a simple question: “were iwi included in this consultation process?”. We presume that the answer must be no, given that the proposed amendments are now removed from the bill. The issue, purely and simply, is one of due process; yet again this Government failed to abide by the process that it expects all others to follow.

Another key area of our concern related to the Forests Amendment Act 1996. We sought further information about the implications in the amendment that may arise for Māori ownership rights to forest produce, including carbon credits. We were also keen to understand the implications for Māori rights in relation to Crown forests on—or potentially on—Māori land. Again, there was no response—interesting!

I began this call, however, by introducing a good-news story to the debate and, in this light, I commend the Rt Hon Winston Peters in particular for his comprehensive response to the concerns we raised about four different Acts. In his capacity as Minister for Racing, Mr Peters listened to our concerns regarding the proposed amendment to allow an alternative person to serve on the nomination advisory panel as part of the process for appointing independent members to the New Zealand Racing Board. The Māori Party was concerned that that amendment could create an awkward precedent that could result in difficulties in maintaining communication, particularly if the goal was to ensure continuity of representation. We were also concerned about the increased pressure this could place on tangata whenua nominees to guarantee consistent representation. In discussion with the Minister we were able to resolve our concerns, so the amendment to the Racing Act 2003 will proceed.

I turn to the Cook Islands Act 1915, the Niue Act 1966, and the Tokelau Act 1948. The other group of Acts that we sought clarification on were the amendments as they related to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau Acts, and associated regulations. As someone who has lived in the Tokelau Islands for 9 months, who spent many, many years in and out of the Cook Islands, and who has developed a strong relationship with the Niue people of Auckland, I say that I have more than a passing interest in ensuring that the needs of Pasifika people are respected and taken into account. The material received on these statutes stated that the amendments are a complex project. We were of a united view that no matter how complex the project, it was essential to ensure that the respective Governments of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau had been advised and consulted on the amendments. Again, it is a matter of due process.

In the response received from the Minister we were assured that the repeals would not compromise the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, that their local laws would not change, except at the request of Tokelau, nor would there be any interference with the constitutional status of those nations and their unique relationships with Aotearoa. He also informed us that the respective Governments of these countries would be duly advised of the changes being made to our law books, before the bill was tabled. There is still more. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, went the extra mile to identify the quality expertise that had been made available to him on this matter. He especially credited Professor Tony Angelo for his work with aspects of the law in Tokelau and Niue, Alison Quentin-Baxter for her work, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and legal advisers in the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

Just a single letter or a confidential briefing was all that was required to be able to discuss and consider the implications and ramifications of the proposed legislative amendments. I cannot help but contrast that situation with the various statements over the last month that have risen out of the mouths of other Ministers, who have suggested that actions taken by tangata whenua have amounted to anarchy, are silly, are ridiculous, or are verging on hysteria. We have been told that in presenting the views of Māori our advocacy is inappropriate, very irresponsible, and surprising. Other Ministers have admitted that they have not been briefed on the key issues for Māori. The Prime Minister has told Māori that repossessing their lands in their endeavours to be heard is not the way to get things done. Just yesterday another Minister responded to my question in the House about consultation processes by implying that this was achieved by consulting another arm of Government, namely Te Puni Kōkiri.

This House needs to recognise that consultation with Māori does not mean talking to itself. Consultation with Māori does not mean that their ideas are dismissed or ridiculed and their people attacked. Consultation with Māori does not mean that they are ignored and their issues denied. Consultation requires the Crown to listen, learn, and be involved in dialogue and debate. The Māori Party will continue to put forward the concerns and priorities of Māori, no matter how uncomfortable or how surprised Ministers may be to hear them. We are here to do our very best to ensure that a strong and independent Māori voice with influence is present in this debating Chamber.

We are heartened by the response of Mr Peters, who has given us confidence that at least one Minister will enable an opportunity for people to participate, for voices to be heard, and for due access to justice to be part of the political process. We are looking forward to that Minister’s openness to tangata whenua voices extending to the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples when it comes back to the General Assembly for voting on later this year.

NICKY WAGNER (National): I rise to support the Statutes Amendment Bill, with the exception of our concerns, as indicated by Richard Worth, over Part 36, which relates to pecuniary interests. Beyond that, although this bill affects about 50 Acts—and my colleague Katrina Shanks will discuss some significant but smaller issues—the majority of the amendments are minor. They are mostly of a technical nature and are generally uncontroversial.

However, I draw the House’s attention to Part 7, which deals with the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. This is an important Act because it defines a charitable trust, and any registered charitable trust needs to comply with the Act if it wishes to maintain its legal status. The amendment we are dealing with is minor and pertains to the technical details required within applications for incorporation. National supports it.

I would like to talk further about the charitable trusts, because they have been in the limelight this week. On Monday the leader of the National Party, John Key, had some good news for these organisations when he announced National’s new policy on tax deductions for charitable donations. That policy will benefit many charitable trusts. The Charitable Trusts Act allows an organisation to be registered as a charitable trust if its activity advances education, advances religion, relieves poverty, or is otherwise beneficial to the community. That covers hundreds of worthwhile organisations. Charitable trusts include social service providers, cultural groups, organisations that support the arts and heritage, and some international aid organisations. We know that Kiwis are generous people. Every day, New Zealanders give their time and money to charitable trusts so that they can do good work in the community. Most Kiwis do not even seek recognition for their efforts, but their generosity sends a message to charities that they are doing a good job, that they are worthwhile, and that they are supported.

National supports Kiwis who donate to their communities, and we support the good work these groups do. We want to promote a culture of generosity and giving in New Zealand, and this new tax policy is a bold step towards achieving that goal. John Key said in his Burnside speech that he wanted to turbocharge the efforts of private and community groups in order to make a difference. This policy shows he means it. It is estimated that it will cost the Government about $60 million to $90 million each year in lost revenue, but that figure will be more than matched by private donations to charitable trusts. When a National Government gives a dollar to charities, the charities will benefit by $3. In effect, it is a kind of matching policy—when people or businesses donate, a National Government will chip in, too. If this policy sees donations increase as much as National expects they will, it will boost donations up to $300 million. That is nearly double the amount that goes into the sector at this stage.

I have never come across a charitable organisation that was not looking for more funds. Most organisations do fantastic things on the smell of an oily rag, so this change in policy will give these organisations a real boost. It is always great to see New Zealanders unselfishly donating to organisations because they believe in Kiwis helping Kiwis and in trying to create a better world. It does not matter what the cause is—whether it is helping kids, supporting social work through the church, funding the arts, or enhancing the environment. Under a National Government, financial support for any contribution made by Kiwis to a charitable trust will be doing good work and will be making a difference, and that is the way it should be.

So, in conclusion, National supports both the amendment in Part 7 to the Charitable Trusts Act and the Statutes Amendment Bill, with the exception of Part 36, which relates to pecuniary interests.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill, noting the exceptions that Richard Worth highlighted previously. I want to say a good afternoon to members in the Chamber; the National Party regional chair, Patricia Morrison, who is sitting in the gallery; other visitors, and also those listening to the radio waves.

Today I am speaking to the Statues Amendment Bill, which makes minor amendments spanning 50 Acts. Many of these changes are minor—for example, changing cross-references. I look on the majority of this bill as a housekeeping chore—something that has to be done regularly but if one is not careful, a small change can have ongoing consequences. Many listeners of the radio waves today would have no idea of the Acts that the Statutes Amendment Bill covers, so I will give some examples of the topics and the changes being made to those.

The amendment to the Real Estate Agents Act will basically make all persons employed by a real estate agent a salesperson. Clause 139 amends section 70(1)(m) of the principal Act to reflect that salespersons and branch managers who are engaged, as well as those who are employed, by members of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. are subject to its code of ethics regarding their professional conduct. This is certainly an intriguing change.

The amendment to the Racing Act is also interesting. It relates to the nomination advisory panel that advises the Minister for Racing on the appointment of certain members to the New Zealand Racing Board. Clause 131 amends section 12 by inserting a new subsection (5A), which provides that if a panel member is unable to participate in a meeting of the panel, the panel member may designate a suitably qualified person to participate in the meeting in the panel member’s place. A layperson would wonder what this change is driving at.

The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act is amended to authorise the maintenance of a register of information provided voluntarily by persons who made donations before 22 August 2005. Section 63(2) is amended by clause 92 to include, in the voluntary information, the donor’s reasons for donating. One wonders whether the changes made by this bill will mean there is a rush by recipients of these donations to receive information.

The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act is amended by clause 66 to substitute a new section 13C. Currently, section 13C allows the Governor-General to amend or replace the schedule of the Act by making an Order in Council on the advice of the Minister of Internal Affairs. The administration of the principal Act has been transferred to the Department of Building and Housing. Accordingly, the reference to the Minister of Internal Affairs is no longer appropriate, and new section 13C omits a reference to the Minister and restates the Governor-General’s powers.

The amendment by clause 78 to section 43G(2) of the Gas Act in the repeal and substitution of paragraph (c) is another example. It ensures that regulations can be made to enable consumers to switch gas suppliers. Currently, this section enables regulations to be made only in respect of gas retailers. However, other parties, including gas-meter owners and distributors, are required to participate in a gas customer switching regime.

Clause 143 amends section 253 of the Resource Management Act to provide for the Attorney-General, and not the Minister of Justice, to appoint environment commissioners or deputy environment commissioners. The Resource Management Amendment Act 2004 made the change from Minister of Justice to Attorney-General for all other judicial appointments under the Resource Management Act 1991.

The Charitable Trusts Act has already been talked about by my colleague sitting beside me, Nicky Wagner. Basically, it removes the need for a body corporate subscriber to add its seal to the application. This amendment loosens up the more formal procedures of the Charitable Trusts Act.

I finish with the amendment by clause 165 to section 39 of the Trade in Endangered Species Act, which authorises an endangered species officer to seize a specimen of an endangered, threatened, or exploited species from a ship, aircraft, port, or aerodrome if the specimen is being traded in contravention of the principal Act, or if it is not listed on the inward or outward report for the ship or aircraft. The specimen is automatically forfeited to the Crown under this provision. The amendment extends the scope of the sites from which an endangered species officer may seize a specimen to include approved transitional facilities and customs-controlled areas. Although an endangered species officer is empowered elsewhere in the principal Act to seize specimens from these sites, the automatic forfeiture of a specimen is not a consequence of these seizure powers. The amendment is a response to the increasing practice of unaccompanied baggage and goods being inspected and cleared by Customs Service and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers at these sites.

Obviously, many more amendments can be highlighted, but I hope members have had an insight into some of the changes being made by the bill. Thank you.

RON MARK (NZ First): I had intended to take a very, very short call, because everybody knows that Statutes Amendment bills get a pretty good working over by most caucuses in the Parliament. That has to be done, because Statutes Amendment bills by their very nature do not get to the floor of the House unless every party agrees. They tend to be non-controversial because they are technical in nature, and although some speakers may feign some concern or disagreement with a particular part or Act that is being technically amended, the truth of the matter is they really are not. If they were concerned, the bill or that part of the bill, simply would not be here today.

But it does present one with a little bit of intellectual gymnastics, when one considers for a moment what the odd member says. The speech made by Nicky Wagner—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?

RON MARK: Nicky Wagner from Christchurch, from the National Party. She pointed out and discussed the amendment in Part 7 to the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. If I were that lady from that party I would not even want to mention the Charitable Trusts Act. I would not want to remind this House—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why is that?

RON MARK: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove from Waimakariri asks why that is. Why it is, is that the Charitable Trusts Act—as she quite correctly pointed out—enables church bodies and religious groups to enjoy some exemptions, particularly exemptions from taxation laws, which other people do not enjoy, because they are religious bodies that are there to teach and preach the word of the Lord, or whichever deity it is that they happen to recognise, and they are not, for one thing, politically motivated or politically engaged.

How interesting it is that the National Party would even want to go near that, because we all now know from Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men that that is precisely what one of these groups of people, namely, the Exclusive Brethren, has been doing. Ironically, we suspected all along—and we now know with absolute surety—that the National Party was the fiscal benefactor of precisely that activity. So possibly there is a deficiency in this Statutes Amendment Bill, and possibly we should be looking more closely at the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957, to make sure that political parties cannot receive third-party funding for their election campaigns.

How ironic it all was, and in fact we can go beyond irony to say what a great lie it was, when Dr Don Brash accused another party of stealing an election, buying an election, by spending $800,000-odd of taxpayers’ money on a pledge card. Well, as much as I might wish to agree with the sentiment that the expenditure was inappropriate, what an absolute joke and what a masterful stroke of hypocrisy it was, coming as it did from Dr Brash, when now we know what we know from this book that I hold in my hand, The Hollow Men. This book will forever—

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought we are actually debating the Statutes Amendment Bill. I know there is a wide range of topics to debate, but Dr Brash is not in the bill. I ask the member to stick to the bill.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your being far more learned than me and many members of this House, I value your view. You would know that this is a very, very wide-ranging debate, and that the member has mentioned a specific proposition—an amendment within the Statutes Amendment Bill—and has built his own arguments around it. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would counsel you to consider that the senior Opposition whip’s proposal is completely out of order. She should read the Standing Orders.

Christopher Finlayson: The only thing that the Minister said that was vaguely sensible, Mr Deputy Speaker, was that you are more learned than him. The reality of the matter is that what the member is addressing is an argument about electoral funding in the context of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. It is way beyond the scope of that legislation. That issue is properly dealt with in the context of a debate about electoral funding and the Electoral Act 1993.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank those members for raising those issues, and each member, in a small way, is correct. But I am more inclined to think that the member who was contributing was correct to use whichever or whatever examples he wished to illustrate the points he was making, and that is what he was doing.

Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a well-known convention, and several Speakers have made the ruling, that points of order will be heard in silence. In fact, the very member who has been on his feet is one who has called the Speaker’s attention to that convention. During the point of order that was taken, while the senior Opposition whip, Anne Tolley, was on her feet, he made a statement that was quite unseemly and also inappropriate, given that points of order should be heard in silence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I wish members to take note of that. Thank you for raising that, Mr Roy.

RON MARK: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting that this has been a deliberate attempt via spurious points of order raised by honourable members of the National Party to break up my speech because I was clearly hurting their pride, I take exception to the fact that Mr Roy, a man who has been an Assistant Speaker and for whom I have great respect, has now cast an aspersion upon me by claiming that I made an unparliamentary, improper suggestion or statement, which I absolutely refute. I would ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Eric Roy: Firstly, I did not say anything other than that it was an inappropriate comment, because it was out of order. For your information, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member said: “They don’t like it, do they?”. That was what I was referring to. Secondly, it was inappropriate, because it was made while a point of order was being heard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct, so I will not have any further comment about the inappropriateness of that being raised as a point of order. It was correctly raised. I did hear it and it was during a point of order. I chose not to take any action, but it was correctly raised.

RON MARK: I refer to Part 7, “Charitable Trusts Act 1957”, and—by crikey, I will repeat this point—we know when we really are getting to the core of some of these National MPs, because these are the very tactics they use. I appreciate the ruling of the Speaker, and I appreciate the fact that some people recognise that that series of points of order was designed simply to shut me down and stop me from speaking about something that will haunt the National Party for a long time. National was once a great party; a party that was once led by the Rt Hon Keith Holyoake from Pahiatua, from whence I came. It was my home town.

But Part 7 of the bill, relating to the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, is here. It was Nicky Wagner from the National Party who raised a specific reference to the charitable organisations and churches that will benefit from this amendment.

I do not think that people who sit on the select committee and analyse this bill will be very impressed by the fact that when we look back over the recent goings-on of the National Party—as are highlighted in The Hollow Men, the title of which should include women, as well—we can see there is a need for more amendments than those we are looking at now.

If I turn the page to Part 9, I see it amends the Civil Union Act, for which the National Party indicates its support. The honourable Chris Finlayson has just raised a point of order to try to shut me down. It is interesting that the Exclusive Brethren, who funded the National Party campaign, are totally against civil unions. Members of the Exclusive Brethren came into our offices to campaign and lobby. They took the names of every MP who was going to vote for the Civil Union Bill, now known as the Civil Union Act 2004, which is now being amended, in part, by this Statutes Amendment Bill. It is ironic that the Exclusive Brethren gave $1 million to the National Party campaign through the back door to get Mr Chris Finlayson here!

Anne Tolley: Grow up!

RON MARK: The member tells me to grow up. Well, it is just something that we point out, is it not? I can tell Anne Tolley, the retread MP who is back again after a short duration—after what is called a sabbatical—that the Exclusive Brethren came to the offices of MPs around Christchurch and lobbied vigorously for people to vote against the Civil Union Bill. The National Party has members of Parliament who are openly gay, and they should know that the people who funded National’s campaign lobbied against them—against their human rights, their lifestyle, and them as individuals. But here we are, making a slight amendment to the Civil Union Act. If the National Party and its financial backers still oppose that legislation, maybe they should not allow that provision to sit in the Statutes Amendment Bill.

Another part of the Statutes Amendment Bill deals with endangered species. Is that not ironic? I am frantically looking for that part of the bill, because there is an endangered species on the political landscape. I want to find that part to see whether it includes National MPs, because the fact of the matter is that once people read The Hollow Men to its fullest extent and understand the level of duplicity, complicity, hypocrisy, underhandedness, and wheeling and dealing of some members of the National Party, then a lot of the MPs who are voting for the first reading of this bill are destined to become an endangered species themselves.

An honourable member of the old school of the National Party whom I know—a person I consider to be a mentor—[Interruption] Anne Tolley can laugh at the Hon Bert Walker if she likes, and criticise him, but Bert Walker is a man whom I classify as someone with old National Party values. I put on the record that the members who are laughing and tittering like schoolgirls, who think that The Hollow Men is something to be proud of, who think that National members are not an endangered species—if they have any doubts about it, ask where Don Brash is now; he is gone—can laugh and titter now, enjoy their time in the House, reflect upon their individual honour and integrity, and ask themselves whether this is the party they really feel comfortable with, or whether they are truly members of an endangered species, soon to become extinct in 2008.

I had thought this was quite a boring bill, that it should pass with little comment, and that we would probably say what needed to be said in the third reading. But one cannot ignore some of the comments made by some of the National speakers when those comments are balanced against the actions we have observed over the last 12 months.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships
Registration Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 28 February.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party will be supporting this bill through its first reading, as on the whole we are in general agreement with what it sets out to achieve. We appreciate the Government’s interest in doing more to prevent identity fraud of the type that led to the conviction of two Israeli spies who had stolen the identity of an Auckland man, in a failed bid to obtain a passport in his name. I have no idea how widespread such identity theft is in this country. But, on the surface of it, it does appear to be rather too easy at present to get hold of birth, death, and marriage certificates in someone else’s name, thereby giving a criminal or spy a strong platform from which to launch fraudulent activity. We therefore have no problems with the Government’s efforts to do more to regulate the access of strangers to information about any individual. The Green Party also supports most other aspects of the bill, which are, in the most part, quite sensible technical amendments relating to how the information collected about births, deaths, marriages, and relationships is managed.

However, we do have some serious concerns about several aspects of the bill. The first concern is in relation to the part of the bill that places a statutory obligation on both parents of a child to jointly notify a registrar of the birth of the child. The only exception to that is when there is only one parent at law. That happens with some procedures for assisted reproduction, where one parent is “unavailable”, or where requiring the other parent to sign the form would cause so-called undue distress to one of the parents. That changes the position from that in the current law, where the obligation to notify a registrar rests only with people who are legally guardians of the child at the time of the birth. If this bill goes through, there will therefore be a statutory obligation on the father of a child to make the notification, and an obligation on the mother to jointly make the notification with the father, whether or not they choose to.

Aside from the situation where a woman fears for the safety of herself or her baby, which would probably be covered by the undue distress exemption, there is a range of other situations where women may not wish to have the name of the father of their child registered. One situation is where a woman in a same-sex relationship wants her partner to share parental responsibilities, but wants to conceive naturally rather than by assisted reproductive technology. Another is where a woman has a partner of the opposite sex who is infertile, but chooses to conceive naturally to another man. A third is where a woman simply wants to raise a child on her own without any involvement, financially or emotionally, from another parent. Those are all reasonable choices for women to make, and are choices that some women do make. Yet with the new section 9 of the principal Act proposed by clause 10 of this bill, they are not choices that women will be lawfully permitted to make.

Furthermore, section 89(e) of the Act makes it a criminal offence for a person, having had the relevant provision of the Act drawn to his or her attention, to fail or refuse to give any information that is required by the Act to be given. Women who choose to refuse to make a joint notification of their baby’s father to a registrar, unless they meet the narrow exemption criteria contained in the new section 9 proposed by this bill, will therefore be subject to prosecution and to a fine of up to $1,000. That aspect of the bill is nothing short of draconian. It makes criminals out of women who wish to make the choice to raise children without the involvement of the biological father.

I also have serious concerns about the wide ambit of the new sections 82 and 85A, inserted by clauses 33 and 35 respectively. The new section 82 gives to the registrar-general extensive and intrusive powers of inquiry regarding birth information. Those women who choose, often for good reasons, not to have the father’s name included on the birth certificate are likely to bear the brunt of those investigatory powers and to have the father’s name registered, against the will of themselves and, often, of the father as well. New section 85A permits the chief executive of the Ministry of Health to provide health information to the registrar-general for the purposes of correcting what the chief executive considers to be errors or omissions in the registration of births. It also permits him or her to correct information, apparently without consultation with the parent or parents who have notified the registrar of the birth. There is a real danger that, without consultation with those who have notified the registrar, not only will biological fathers’ names be registered against the wishes of the mother and of themselves but errors will be created rather than corrected as a consequence of that provision.

Because of our concerns about those elements of the bill, the Green Party will not promise to support this bill past the initial first reading tonight. We hope the select committee will look seriously and carefully at the implications of what the bill sets out to do in the area of birth registration, and that organisations with an interest in this area will take the opportunity to make useful submissions on the broader implications of this legislation. I think we all have to tread a little carefully when Governments put forward legislation that they tell us is merely technical, and I hope this bill gets the scrutiny it deserves from the select committee and the public alike.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): As both Mark Blumsky and Sandra Goudie have said, National will oppose the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. We have some real concerns about clause 26, which substitutes new sections 73 to 75.

The reason we are opposing the bill was explained very clearly by Mr Blumsky a couple of nights ago: when one reads the explanatory note of the bill, one finds that there was consultation with a number of governmental organisations, but there was no public consultation at all. In particular, as Mrs Goudie said, there was no consultation with genealogists. We say that that is totally unsatisfactory, and we say that the Government has arrogantly proceeded with this legislation without consulting genealogists.

I know that genealogy is a big word, and Mr Cosgrove may need to have it explained to him, but I say this. Genealogy as a form of study has become increasingly important, not only in New Zealand but worldwide, because family history is what ties and binds generations together. It gives people a sense of purpose and meaning.

There are a number of ways in which genealogy is used. An obvious example is in education. Indeed, in preparing for this debate, I read some studies about teachers in Indiana who use genealogy with very young students to teach them the methodology of learning about history and so on. Even in the Utah state prison near Salt Lake City they have introduced a programme—a family history centre that gives new purpose to inmates. They study where they have come from, they are now actively engaged in their own genealogical research, and apparently their experiences leave them humbled as they see what generations before them were able to accomplish. Indeed, I would recommend that to Mr O’Connor, the Minister of Corrections. He could be interested in such a programme, although given his record with regard to the Department of Corrections he would probably muck it up.

Then we have the obvious uses of genealogy for family and friends, coordinators of class reunions, planners of family association meetings, organisers of anniversary gatherings, and so on. They all use genealogical techniques. Legal inheritance is an obvious use, and quality of life, honour, and prestige are all obvious. The historical context of genealogical research needs to be emphasised; it is increasingly used as a historical device. It contributes to migration and settlement studies, as well as to religious and congregational studies. The history of both a particular church and a denomination requires looking at families over several generations. Perhaps, most important in the modern era, there is genetic research. There can hardly be a more worthy endeavour than to at last lay to rest a soldier who has been lost, and the Prime Minister would know about that. There can be hardly a more moving ceremony, as we know from the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior.

So in the space of a few minutes I have touched on some of the many faces of family history, and the importance to New Zealand of genealogical research. That is why genealogy is not just a marginal or fringe activity; it is a very important activity. Those people involved in genealogy were entitled to be consulted, and I know from what my colleagues have said to me, and from my own research, that genealogy is an increasingly important activity.

Of course, Labour does not understand any of this, because Labour hates tradition. It has no respect for the past unless it is useful for electoral purposes. One has only to witness the Prime Minister’s shabby performance in Gallipoli a few years ago.

Some have, indeed, suggested that Labour is tightening up the procedures so those people can hide their own past because they have ancestors who were pickpockets and vagabonds. Well, that cannot apply to Annette King, who is related to Chester Borrows and me, and we come from good stock. If they have ancestors who were pickpockets—and I do not really care whether they do—then that, of course, is minor compared with the Labour MPs of today, who stole $800,000 of public funds that Labour has not paid back.

So this bill is fundamentally flawed. It is a marginal decision, so often, when one looks at legislation—can it be stitched up in the select committee, or have the proper procedures not been followed? And the National Party says, in this instance, that it fails. It is so fundamentally flawed that we say there needs to be a good round of consultation with the genealogical societies. That is why we not supporting it. It is not an aspect of research; it is fundamental to historical research. We think that the arrogant, condescending, and high-handed way in which the Government has dealt with this legislation is unsatisfactory, so we are not supporting it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill be agreed to.

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 48; Independent: Field.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): I move, That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, that it be an instruction to the committee for the bill to be reported to the House by 12 June 2007, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192, 194(a), and 195(1)(b) and (c). In order that the proposed amendments are available in August 2007 to inform the next major set of fisheries management decisions that must be made by 1 October 2007, I intend to move that the committee report the bill by 12 June 2007, in accordance with Standing Order 291(1).

The Fisheries Act 1996 is a principal statute governing the management of New Zealand’s fisheries resources. The Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill will amend the Act to give clearer direction to decision makers where there are gaps or flaws in the information on which they must base their decisions. The amendment bill will ensure that where information is uncertain or lacking, decision makers can take measures they judge necessary to ensure sustainability in fisheries resources, and protection of the marine environment.

The purpose of the Fisheries Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while, at the same time, ensuring sustainability. In order to achieve this, the Act provides for limits to be set within which sustainable fishing can occur. Often, there is uncertainty or other flaws in the information available on how ecosystems and fish stocks behave. This means that decisions to allow harvest carry some degree of risk. The impact of a flawed decision will vary according to the nature of the flaw and the stock characteristics. If a decision overestimates the relevant stock levels, sustainability of the fishery is put at risk. If it underestimates the stock levels, then harvest has been unnecessarily constrained. Internationally, there is a consensus that where information is uncertain or otherwise flawed, fisheries managers should adopt a precautionary approach and should not use the uncertainty in information as a reason for postponing, or failing to take, measures to ensure sustainability. This general precautionary approach is contained in a number of international agreements to which New Zealand is a party.

Currently, the principles on how fisheries managers should deal with information when making fisheries management decisions are set out in section 10 of the Act. These principles explain that decision makers should consider any uncertainty and be cautious where information has this or other flaws. It also states that decision makers should not use the absence of, or uncertainty in, information as a reason for postponing or failing to take measures to achieve the purpose of the Act. The reference in this section to the purpose of the Act creates ambiguity. Because the purpose includes two objectives—providing for utilisation, on the one hand, and ensuring sustainability, on the other—the current wording of section 10 does not provide the decision maker with clear directions on which of the two objectives they should favour in situations of uncertainty.

The amendment contained in this bill will make clear that where information is uncertain or incomplete, this is not a reason to delay or avoid taking measures to ensure sustainability. It protects decision makers from the argument that they should not take measures to ensure sustainability if the threat to sustainability is uncertain. Although the impacts on both utilisation and sustainability will continue to be considered in situations of uncertainty, the amendment will indicate a clear preference that measures taken should favour sustainability. This is consistent with the international interpretation of the precautionary approach and good fisheries management.

The proposed changes may constrain utilisation in certain circumstances in the short term, but the overall impact should be positive, helping to ensure a more sustainable resource base so that all New Zealanders can obtain value and enjoyment from our fisheries resources into the future. The short point is that if we do not preserve our fish sustainably, we will not have any to fish for.

In summary, this bill provides for amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996 that will ensure that the Act better reflects the international interpretation of a precautionary approach as it applies to fisheries management in New Zealand. It will ensure that even where information is uncertain or otherwise flawed, decision makers can act cautiously and take measures to ensure sustainability of fisheries resources and address any adverse effects on fishing and on the aquatic environment. I commend this bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): We agree with the Minister that the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill needs due consideration. The National Party will certainly be supporting the bill going to select committee. The bill clarifies the law by providing a clearer direction to the Minister of Fisheries that where there is inadequate information on fish stock health, it will take a cautious approach and set annual catch levels lower rather than higher.

The Fisheries Act 1996 did, in fact, have the intention that the Minister would take a cautionary approach. Unfortunately, in setting the total allowable catch, the legislation states that the Minister will have regard to the purpose of the Act. Of course, the purpose of the Act is to have utilisation of the fish stock alongside ensuring sustainability. Unfortunately, when there is not enough information the Minister cannot necessarily err on the side of sustainability. He must still consider the purpose of providing for utilisation.

This bill is intended to clarify where the balance lies between the utilisation of fish stocks and the sustainability of fisheries resources. The amended legislation will make it explicit that when information is absent or otherwise poor the Minister should take a precautionary approach to ensure sustainability of the fish stock for future generations—whether that be for commercial, customary, or recreational use.

We know that the precautionary approach is in international agreements. Those agreements generally say that States shall apply the precautionary approach widely to conservation management and exportation of struggling fish stocks—that is the usual definition.

National has some concerns, of course. One of those concerns is how the Minister will sense what value or volume of information is sufficient so that he does not have to use the constraint of new section 10(c), inserted by clause 4, to consider sustainability—one can never be 100 percent sure about the fish stocks in terms of surveys.

The second concern we have is how much further research will have to be done. What compliance and research costs will be borne by commercial fishers to avoid this new standard, whereby the Minister will retreat to the precautionary approach? We are concerned that fishers may have to meet larger and larger compliance and research costs. We are interested to know how the Minister will sense what value or volume of information is required to avoid this particular clause. We will support this legislation to select committee. We do not have any commitment after that, but look forward to submissions.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I will take a call, which will be quite a short one, given the impending hour of the rising of the House. This legislation is another significant add-on to what is already quite a comprehensive Act—the Fisheries Act 1996. Some members who were not here in 1996 can reflect on the fact that that Act broke new ground in terms of sustainable harvest, not only in New Zealand but internationally. If one goes back and looks at that 1996 Act, one sees that—in what we might call the religious part, right at the start, which is purposes and principles—it contains enshrined elements of sustainability for the first time anywhere in the world. Therefore, New Zealand’s 1996 Fisheries Act has been acknowledged in many places internationally as a very worthwhile standard for managing a wild resource in a sustainable way.

Since that 1996 Fisheries Act was passed, I do not think that there has been an Act of Parliament that has been amended more often than that Act. When the issue of fisheries comes up there is generally a glazing of the eyes for a significant number of members; I see some members nodding at me now. But, in reality, fishing is a very significant resource for New Zealand. It is a very important part of the New Zealand export economy, and we need to clarify issues surrounding the question of how we might do it better.

My colleague Phil Heatley spoke quite candidly about the areas of concern that National has. Yes, we will support this bill’s going to the select committee. Yes, we believe we need to err on the side of sustainability. But the bill does open another door—and I will make this claim: we will be back again to refine another element of it. I do not have a problem with that, because this is a work in progress and we need to refine and improve on a consistent basis.

I am a little perplexed by clause 5, which is going to bring some retrospective elements into this bill before we pass it.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.