Reinstatement of Business
I move, That the following business be reinstated:
Bills
Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill
Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2)
Arms Amendment Bill (No 3)
Building Amendment Bill (No 2)
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6)
Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill
Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill
Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill
Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill
Copyright (Commissioning Rule) Amendment Bill
Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2)
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill
Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill
Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2)
Domestic Violence Reform Bill
Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill
Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill
Education (National Standards of Literacy and Numeracy) Amendment Bill
Electoral Finance Amendment Bill
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill
Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill
Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 3)
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Amendment Bill
Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill
Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill
Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill
Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)
Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill
Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2)
Immigration Bill
Inquiries Bill
Judicial Matters Bill
Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4)
Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill
Legal Services Amendment Bill
Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill
Māori Trustee Amendment Bill
Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill
Marine Reserves Bill
Marine Reserves (Consultation with Stakeholders) Amendment Bill
Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill
Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill
Oaths Modernisation Bill
Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill
Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill
Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill
Patents Bill
Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill
Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill
Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill
Public Health Bill
Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill
Rail Network Bill
Regulatory Improvement Bill
Regulatory Responsibility Bill
Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2)
Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill
Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill
Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill
Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill
Search and Surveillance Powers Bill
Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill
Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill
Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill
Standards and Accreditation Bill
Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Bill
Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill
Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill
Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill
Trustee Amendment Bill
Unit Titles Bill
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill
Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill
Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill
Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill
Allocation of 2008/09 financial reviews
Commerce
Accounting Standards Review Board
Broadcasting Commission
Broadcasting Standards Authority
Commerce Commission
Earthquake Commission
Electricity Commission
Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited
Genesis Power Limited
Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation
Government Superannuation Fund Authority
Kordia Group
Meridian Energy Limited
Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited
Ministry of Economic Development
Mighty River Power Limited
New Zealand Post Limited
New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
New Zealand Tourism Board
New Zealand Venture Investment Fund Limited
Public Trust
Radio New Zealand Limited
Securities Commission
Solid Energy New Zealand Limited
Standards Council
Takeovers Panel
Television New Zealand Limited
Testing Laboratory Registration Council of New Zealand
Transpower New Zealand Limited
Education and Science
AgResearch Limited
Career Services
Education Review Office
Foundation for Research Science and Technology
Industrial Research Limited
Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited
Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited
Landcare Research New Zealand Limited
Learning Media Limited
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Research Science and Technology
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited
National Library of New Zealand
New Zealand Forest Research Institute Limited
New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research Limited
New Zealand Qualifications Authority
New Zealand Teachers Council
Tertiary Education Commission
The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Limited
Finance and Expenditure:
Air New Zealand Limited
Department of Building and Housing
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Inland Revenue Department
New Zealand Food Safety Authority
New Zealand Railways Corporation
Office of the Controller and Auditor-General
Reserve Bank of New Zealand
The Treasury
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade:
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
New Zealand Antarctic Institute
New Zealand Customs Service
New Zealand Defence Force
Government Administration:
Archives New Zealand Limited
Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa
Department of Internal Affairs
Drug Free Sport New Zealand
Office of Film and Literature Classification
Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives
Office of the Ombudsmen
Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs
Ministry of Women’s Affairs
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Board
New Zealand Film Commission
New Zealand Fire Service Commission
New Zealand Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga)
New Zealand Lotteries Commission
New Zealand Symphony Orchestra
Parliamentary Service
Sport and Recreation New Zealand
State Services Commission
Statistics New Zealand
Health:
Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand
Auckland District Health Board
Bay of Plenty District Health Board
Canterbury District Health Board
Capital and Coast District Health Board
Counties Manukau District Health Board
Crown Health Financing Agency
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board
Health and Disability Commissioner
Health Research Council of New Zealand
Health Sponsorship Council
Hutt District Health Board
Lakes District Health Board
Mental Health Commission
MidCentral District Health Board
Ministry of Health
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board
New Zealand Blood Service
Northland District Health Board
Otago District Health Board
Pharmaceutical Management Agency
South Canterbury District Health Board
Southland District Health Board
Tairawhiti District Health Board
Taranaki District Health Board
Waikato District Health Board
Wairarapa District Health Board
Waitemata District Health Board
West Coast District Health Board
Whanganui District Health Board
Justice and Electoral:
Abortion Supervisory Committee
Crown Law Office
Electoral Commission
Human Rights Commission
Law Commission
Legal Services Agency
Ministry of Justice
Parliamentary Counsel Office
Privacy Commissioner
Law and Order:
Department of Corrections
Independent Police Conduct Authority
New Zealand Police
Serious Fraud Office
Local Government and Environment:
Department of Conservation
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority
Environmental Risk Management Authority
Ministry for the Environment
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
Māori Affairs
Ministry of Māori Development (Te Puni Kōkiri)
Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi (Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency)
Te Taura Whiri I Te Reo Māori (Māori Language Commission)
Primary Production:
Animal Control Products Limited
AsureQuality Limití
Landcorp Farming Limited
Land Information New Zealand
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Ministry of Fisheries
Quotable Value Limited
Timberland West Coast Limited
Social Services:
Charities Commission
Children’s Commissioner
Families Commission
Housing New Zealand Corporation
Ministry of Social Development
New Zealand Artificial Limb Board
Retirement Commissioner
Social Workers Registration Board
Transport and Industrial Relations:
Accident Compensation Corporation
Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
Department of Labour
Land Transport New Zealand
Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand
Ministry of Transport
Transit New Zealand
Transport Accident Investigation Commission
Petitions
Commerce Committee:
Petition 2005/78 of John Andrew Dickson
Education and Science Committee:
Petition 2005/176 of Erin Roe and 287 others
Petition 2005/188 of Ngahuia Nuri and 3,043 others
Finance and Expenditure Committee:
Petition 2005/183 of Edith McIndoe
Petition 2005/190 of Grant Morgan
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee:
Petition 2005/87 of Poutama Tsoi and 965 others
Petition 2005/88 of Poutama Tsoi and 1,794 others
Petition 2005/89 of Poutama Tsoi and 2,572 others
Petition 2005/90 of Poutama Tsoi and 270 others
Petition 2005/91 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/92 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/93 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/94 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/95 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/96 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/97 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/98 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/99 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/100 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/101 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/102 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/103 of Homeira Madani and 1,346 others
Petition 2005/117 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/118 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/119 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/120 of Poutama Tsoi and 862 others
Petition 2005/121 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/122 of Poutama Tsoi
Petition 2005/146 of Malcolm Ball and 22 others
Petition 2005/149 of Poutama Tsoi and 2,050 others
Petition 2005/151 of Geoff White on behalf of Trade Aid
Petition 2005/161 of Robert Ritchie and 2,780 others
Petition 2005/164 of Hamid Moradi and 182 others
Petition 2005/185 of Morgan Davie and 86 others
Health Committee:
Petition 2005/68 of Tui Kay Fazakerley and 2,735 others
Petition 2005/84 of Chris Fowlie, President, on behalf of NORML New Zealand Inc and 2,991 others
Petition 2005/148 of Mandy Carter and 27,464 others
Petition 2005/163 of Maxine Cook for The Herceptin Riders
Petition 2005/170 of Nicola Grace for Health Freedom New Zealand and 7,000 others
Petition 2005/177 of Ngaitia Nagel and 11,370 others
Petition 2005/186 of Vee Bryce
Petition 2005/187 of John Gregory Shennan and 6,096 others
Justice and Electoral Committee:
Petition 2005/178 of Heinz Rosenberg
Law and Order Committee:
Petition 2005/156 of Te Ururoa Flavell
Local Government and Environment Committee:
Petition 2002/122 of Len Harvey and 1,196 others
Petition 2005/162 of Pat Van Alstyne
Petition 2005/168 of Metiria Turei MP
Petition 2005/175 of Todd McClay and 1,074 others
Petition 2005/179 of Sarah Allen and 3,100 others
Primary Production Committee:
Petition 2005/182 of Riki Harris
Transport and Industrial Relations Committee:
Petition 2005/181 Hon Phil Goff
Petition 2005/189 Nicky Wagner and 435 others
Other matters referred to committees
International treaty examination of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference, Antalya 2006 (International Telecommunications Union)
International treaty examination of the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Union Conference, Geneva 2007
International treaty examination of the Revised Constitution of the Asia- Pacific Telecommunity
Question of privilege relating to the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by members in the context of court orders
Review of Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interests
Other business
Orders of the day for the consideration of the following:
Government Notice of Motion No 1 and report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2008
Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on whole of government direction regarding all-of-government shared authentication services
Report of the Commerce Committee on the Inquiry into housing affordability in New Zealand
Report of the Health Committee on a Briefing on aspartame and petition 2005/167 of Alison White and 7,886 others
Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the international treaty examination of the Protocol of 1996 to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976
Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the international treaty examination of the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973
Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the international treaty examination of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage
Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the international treaty examination of the protocol amending the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 2005
Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the international treaty examination of the International Tropical Timber Agreement 2006
Report of the Primary Production Committee on the international treaty examination of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004
Report of the Commerce Committee on the Inquiry into the valuation methodology for State-owned enterprises
Report of the Law and Order Committee on the international treaty examination of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement
Report of the Social Services Committee on the inquiry into the quality of care and service provision for people with disabilities and petition 2005/47 of Kate Moulson on behalf of the Canterbury Branch of the Motor Neuron Disease Association of New Zealand and 124 others, petition 2005/49 of Averil Wooton, and petition 2005/26 of Sue Robinson and 533 others
Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the inquiry into Māori participation in early childhood education
Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Further inquiry into material incorporated by reference
Report of the Social Services Committee on the inquiry into the care and rehabilitation of youth sex offenders
Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the inquiry into the future monetary policy framework
Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the visit of the Māori Affairs Committee to Australia, 26 to 30 May 2008
Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on proposed change to format of Estimates and other information presented with Appropriation bills
Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Monetary Policy Statement, September 2008
Report of the Health Committee on a Briefing on meningococcal B vaccination programme
Report of the Regulations Review Committee on a Complaint regarding the Overseas Investment Amendment Regulations 2008
Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the inquiry into the use of instruments of exemption in primary legislation
Report of the Regulations Review Committee on Activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2008
Interim report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the inquiry into New Zealand’s relationships with South Pacific countries
Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the international treaty examination of the Amendments to the Convention Establishing a Customs Co-operation Council
Report of the Primary Production Committee on Briefings on declining numbers in agriculture education.
In doing so I simply say that it has become somewhat of a tradition in this House that most—
Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The notice of motion is laid out on the Order Paper. I know that it is somewhat lengthy, but it should actually be read in full, because that is the motion that is being moved.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the point of order is a little unnecessary at this stage, Dr Cullen.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Hon Dr Michael Cullen does make an interesting point, and that is that a significant amount of business is being carried over from the last Parliament to this one. Of course, a significant amount of business was carried over between the end of the Parliament before that, in 2005, and the start of the new Parliament in 2005. Interestingly, a number of the bills from that pre-2005 Parliament are still here, and, even more interestingly, some bills that were around in the 1999-2002 Parliament are also still here. It will not surprise people who know how this place works that at least one bill was here pre-1999.
The convention has always been that most business does carry over, so that the new Parliament can make its own determination. For the last two Parliaments there has actually been a Standing Order that requires that, rather than this debate being held at the end of a Parliament’s life, at the beginning of a Parliament’s life consideration is given to what should be carried over. There is also a provision that means that new Ministers who do not wish to progress a bill have an opportunity to ensure that the bill takes no further steps. None the less, bills in progress do get dealt with by the House, which is right and proper.
We consider that three things on the previous Order Paper should not progress. Two of those were interim reports on bills that have already been passed, so they were totally superfluous, and the other was the Education Amendment Bill (No 3), which we have decided not to progress, and therefore it has been omitted from the notice of motion. By and large, the Government is happy for this body of work to carry over, but I signal that Ministers will be terminating much of the business mentioned here, when they start to deal with the Order Paper in a more formal manner.
Could I begin by congratulating the Leader of the House on successfully moving a motion and speaking to it, which in the short life of this Parliament is a first for the Leader of the House. That is not to say, of course, that there were not a great deal of disasters along the way, because we have seen already in the motion on urgency that the Government has had to change its mind—it has bills not yet drafted, with titles not yet known and content yet unknown, which are still being negotiated between the members of the various factions within the National Party.
I want to say also that, with the Standing Orders having changed some little time ago, this is an important motion because it is constitutionally important. It is the incoming Parliament that determines whether to pick up the business of the outgoing Parliament, not the outgoing Parliament that tries to determine for the incoming Parliament what is done. I have no objection to the matters that have been deleted from the outgoing Order Paper. The Leader of the House is quite correct that those matters do not need to be concluded any longer.
But could I ask a few questions, perhaps—and some of my colleagues might want to take part in this debate. We did offer the Government the opportunity to have the motion taken before lunch time. There would have been one very brief speech, if that, on it and it could have been passed. But for some reason the Government decided to move this motion in urgency, as the first and most important item of business in urgency on the first real sitting day of the Parliament of this new National - ACT - Māori Party Government. This particular motion could have flown through the House at about 12.15 this afternoon with nobody even noticing. But that, of course, is the result of the rather strange way the National Party manages its business.
First of all, could I ask, since the member who moved this motion asked me so many times about the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill, what the Government’s position is. Will it be passing this bill? For week after week, month after month, I dangled this bill in front of the National Party Opposition. Almost every week those members bit. The little fly-fisher Dr Cullen pulled out his little rod and Mr Brownlee bit almost every week, and I thought: “My God, how am I going to hang on to this rod with Mr Brownlee on the other end of it?” Luckily he lacked the energy and very quickly let go again, and he went into a sort of a quiescent state. So I would like to know whether the Government will be passing the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Bill.
The second question is: what is the intention of the National Party’s coalition partners the Māori Party in respect of the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill—a bill that the Māori Party consistently avoided putting to the House week after week, month after month as a member’s bill, even though it was the sole reason for the formation of that party? But when it came to the Order Paper, it ran away, so far inland, indeed, that it had to scale mountains to avoid the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill. I am told that Mrs Turia was on television on Sunday saying that Māori own the foreshore and seabed—news, I am sure, to Mr Colin King. I can see his intelligent mien showing a great deal of interest in that prospect. It will be very interesting for him in the Kaikōura electorate explaining to people that Māori own the foreshore and seabed, particularly because the relevant Māori disagree about where the boundary is between the various iwi within his particular electorate. That is going to cause a particular problem in that regard.
Hon Tariana Turia: Oh, how shocking.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is absolutely true, I have to tell the member, that there is a conflict over the rohe between Ngāi Tahu and the north of the South Island iwi in terms of those boundaries.
Indeed, what the member was reported as saying was that the only real issue now is what the conditions of access for Pākehā to the foreshore and seabed will be. So is that what this review is going to be about, and will this bill be passed in this form with only relatively minor amendments? Is that what the brave National Party, after all its talk on the Foreshore and Seabed Act, is going to do, or will it allow the processes that I have secured for Ngāti Porou—a very significant recognition of rights—to proceed? Mr Flavell thinks they are not significant recognitions of rights. If they are more than what is in that bill, there will have to be something like freehold ownership, and if that is what National is saying the outcome of this review will be, it is going to be a very, very short-term Government indeed because that is not what middle New Zealand thought it was getting when it voted for a change of Government but no change in policy.
Finally, there is the Education (National Standards of Literacy and Numeracy) Amendment Bill. What is going to happen to that? We are told that as long as parents are told by teachers how little Johnny is doing, even if little Johnny is failing—all they have to do is tell them little Johnny is failing—productivity is going to magically rise in the New Zealand economy within a matter of months, or at least in a very few number of years. So this bill is going to be crucial, and I want to know whether this bill is going to be passed in the form moved by Mrs Tolley, who, at one of her first briefings with officials, had to ask them: “What does a vice-chancellor do?” She asked this of education officials. She thought it had something to do with vice. She thought the vice-chancellor was the moral supervisor within a university. She asked what he or she does. We want to know whether this bill is going to be passed, and, if so, in what form. On that note we are happy to support the motion.
I just want to make a short call on the motion concerning the reinstatement of business. In particular I want to raise an issue referred to by Mr Cullen—that is, one of the pieces of legislation tabled in the House after the House rose. It did not have its first reading. It was the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill—a bill that concerns the negotiations that arise out of the foreshore and seabed legislation between the Crown and Ngāti Porou. A number of other iwi are intrinsically affected by this legislation. One is Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti. I remember them coming to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee in 2004 where they talked about their mana moana being taken over by Ngāti Porou, how they were struggling to get any recognition of their mana whenua and their mana moana in negotiations with Ngāti Porou in the settlement legislation that was already under way, and how they were being locked out of any right to have a say over what was their rohe and their mana.
That was one of the major issues that continued throughout the debate on the foreshore and seabed legislation: that those smaller iwi, those smaller hapū, would continue to be locked out because the Government would negotiate with the big boys, like Ngāti Porou, and continue to lock out those smaller ones. Those larger iwi who were negotiating were themselves not respecting the rohe of these smaller and less well-resourced iwi and hapū. Therefore, the situation was going to be exacerbated not only by the foreshore and seabed legislation, which would strip away their rights to take action in the court, but also because of the ability for those big iwi to negotiate directly with the Government. We have seen that exact result. That exactly has played out, as was feared at the time by those smaller iwi.
This legislation should be taken out of the reinstatement motion. It should not be continued with in this way, at least until after the review is done. The Green Party believes that it should be taken out because it is unfair legislation, and that the foreshore and seabed legislation should be repealed. What should be here instead is the repeal of that legislation. It should also be taken out, at least until the review is completed, because there is no concept yet as to what is likely to happen as a result of the review.
I have made no secret about my extreme disappointment that the Māori Party failed to get the foreshore and seabed legislation repealed as part of its negotiations, and that it took ministerial positions in those negotiations, even though it failed to get the foreshore and seabed legislation repealed. I would have thought that that would be an absolute priority, and I am very disappointed it was not, as are the 4,000-odd people who wrote submissions on that legislation and who wanted it repealed, the 2,000 who wanted to be heard by the select committee but could not be heard, the majority of the 200 who were able to be heard—and Tariana Turia was on that select committee; she heard those submissions and knows the strength of that—and, as we saw, the 20,000 people at the front of Parliament on the day that that legislation was passed. So it is extremely disappointing that that has not happened so that this issue would itself be resolved, because then this legislation would not be necessary.
I do not believe that the foreshore and seabed legislation gives hapū or iwi any greater right to negotiate with Government. The settlement legislation is there to make that happen. But in this case, given that there is an apparent review of that legislation, there still remains the remote possibility of its being repealed. The continuance of this legislation is inappropriate at this time, and we continue to support those small iwi directly affected by this bill and all other iwi and other Māori who support the repeal of the foreshore legislation and the elimination of the confiscation of property rights that the foreshore and seabed legislation was.
I would like to address a couple of questions to the Leader of the House in respect of the Government motion under debate. In particular, I would like to ask why the Government has decided to carry forward the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill, which, as I recall, is in the name of a former New Zealand First member of Parliament. I recall that it was voted against by all members of the Education and Science Committee, except for the New Zealand First member of that committee. Noting that New Zealand First is no longer able to be with us, it seems to me that there is not really a case for proceeding with that bill.
I note also that the purpose of the legislation is to allow for the possibility of there being more than eight vice-chancellors in the country. I let the Minister of Education know—because the language is, of course, a little confusing—that “chancellor” actually means Minister of Finance, the “pro-chancellor” is the private sector helper who is to come in to do a line by line analysis of all of the budget of the Government, the “vice-chancellor” is the Associate Minister of Finance, and the “pro vice-chancellor” is the little private sector helper whom the Associate Minister of Finance may want to bring in. I hope that makes it clearer.
Over the page I notice that the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill has been carried forward. Only 2 hours ago the Prime Minister of the land told us that the Serious Fraud Office would continue, yet the Serious Fraud Office abolition bill has been allowed to go forward. Why would the Government take that decision? I note the Leader of the House’s comments that Ministers may take a fresh look at legislation and decide not to proceed with it on a case by case basis. But here is a case that is very straightforward, because the Prime Minister has told this House that there will be a Serious Fraud Office and therefore to abolish it will not be necessary. But we have a Serious Fraud Office abolition bill in front of us, which tells me that either the Government did not look very carefully at this list or the Prime Minister of the land got it wrong. I would like some assistance on that, if the Leader of the House can help.
I move, That the question be now put.
I am very rarely speechless on occasions like this—very, very rarely speechless. But the idea that a Government, when serious questions have been asked—some of them are very serious questions—has not made a single attempt to reply and has then moved the closure motion, is a continuation of the ineptness that we have seen right from the beginning, especially from the Leader of the House. We have seen today the opportunity to pass this motion in, probably, 30 seconds, and I think the Opposition could have got some criticism for not properly scrutinising it in the way that is occurring now, but we certainly want to do that over the next 2 or 3 hours as we work our way through it.
Some bills in this motion are particularly important, and I am very surprised that the Government is continuing them in their current form. Without wanting to bring you into the debate, Mr Speaker, I would have thought that the Government would be better briefed in the immigration area—around the Immigration Bill and its intentions with regard to that—and that it would be able to give us a clear steer on its views. That is something National was previously able to do, with a very able spokesperson in the immigration area, but the new Minister is clearly, clearly not up to speed and prepared to comment at this stage.
As for the Electoral Finance Amendment Bill, I thought the Government had signalled an intention to introduce legislation in this area. I think the Prime Minister, somewhere in his speech, or maybe the Speech from the Throne—both of them were rambling, badly written affairs, but on one of those two occasions—indicated the intention of the Government to bring in electoral finance repeal legislation. So why are we being asked here by Mr Brownlee to put on the Order Paper something that he knows is not going to progress, that he does not want to progress, and on which there would not have been any opposition from this side of the House if it had been left out of the list? If it had been left out, no one on this side of the House would have been too concerned about that.
I am interested in the position of the member for Taupō. Does the new member for Taupō support the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill? Yes or no—we will take a yes or no answer. The member would not lose her virginity by saying yes or no; she would still be a maiden. No, the member for Taupō has no view on the trout issue, and the Taupō newspapers will be very interested in that. The Taupō newspapers will be very interested in the fact that that member, who is somewhat of a fraud given the photos she put on her billboards, has no view on that issue at all.
There are some other issues—for example, the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill. I understand there is a new member in that area as well, and we would like to be told that member’s opinion. We would like to know the member’s opinion as to—[Interruption]—No, no, it is Franklin, I say to Mr Brownlee, not Frankton. There is a difference between the two places: one is in Auckland, and one is in Hamilton. Mr Brownlee may be a Christchurch member, but there is no reason for him to be ignorant in that area.
There are two bills relating to marine reserves—very, very contentious legislation. My friend the previous Minister of Conservation found that marine reserves were not the easiest thing to progress; they required a lot of consultation and a lot of discussion. But are these the bills that the Government wants to be put on the Order Paper to progress? Mr Brownlee says they are, but my understanding is that quite a few of his fellow Ministers do not think they should be there at all, and that they certainly think the time of the House should not be spent on debating this motion, which is something that could have been sorted out before the House went into urgency.
The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill addresses the question of whistleblowers. Again it is important legislation and will be controversial, with a lot of debate. But is that the stuff that is core to the Government’s business and vital in terms of its 100-day agenda, or even something that needs to be on its agenda at all?
Craig Foss: There’s a lot of whistleblowing going on now.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There is a lot of whistleblowing. We had the whistle being blown on the Minister of Education, who asked what a vice-chancellor was. For goodness’ sake—a Minister of Education who asked what a vice-chancellor did! It is just unbelievable that the Governor-General would give a warrant to a person who is so ignorant in that area. I would have thought that was a case where the Governor-General could send the advice back for another opinion. I am sure former Ministers of Education—there are at least three of us in this corner, and four of us if we count the tertiary education area—would never have contemplated having to ask a question like that, which is very relevant, of course, to the bill that was formerly in the name of Mr Donnelly and that no one appears to want other than Mr Brownlee, who, under urgency that is heading into days and nights, wants us to debate whether the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill should be something that we focus on.
There are some other important bills. I am sure my friend Mr Cosgrove will be very interested in the view of the National Party on the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). The members of that party made a lot of noise about it when they were in Opposition. It would be good to hear Rodney Hide say whether he thinks it is a proper vehicle for his reforms in that regulatory area.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The problem is, they’re all dwangs and no studs.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think the comment Dr Cullen has made, which will get into the record, is something I could not possibly say, but I am sure that he will. Do we have an opinion from Rodney Hide or Tariana Turia on these matters? They are Ministers, they should be on top of these issues, and they are clearly not. Clearly those people were consulted. I am absolutely certain that if there had been proper consultation on this issue with the Māori Party, this list would be considerably different. And that is just another example of the Māori Party being stepped on, walked over—
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Mana-enhancing.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, it is hardly mana-enhancing not to be consulted in this area—not mana-enhancing, at all. But then, a lot of things that this Government is proposing to do with the support of the Māori Party are designed to hurt Māori—to hurt people at the bottom of the heap. Those members were just so keen to get into Government, and so keen to get the big cars to drive them back and forth between Wellington and Wanganui that they did not care what they were signing up to. The generous approach would be to say they did not know what they were signing up to. The less generous approach would be to say they knew what they were signing up to, but did not care.
This motion is important because it proposes to carry over a wide range of bills that were before the House, some of which are extremely important. The Opposition would like clarification from the Government on several of them that appear to have been impinged upon by matters announced in the Speech from the Throne.
One bill—and I will relate it to another part of the motion on the Order Paper—is the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill. We seek clarification as to whether that bill will proceed, given the proposal to set up a separate select committee to revisit, I understand—contrary to the motion that appears on the Order Paper—the science of climate change in order to establish whether it is really happening. Commentators around the world will be waiting with bated breath to hear the conclusions that Mr Hide and others come to about whether the planet is actually warming. But, pending that outcome, will that bill proceed? It is a very important question.
The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Amendment Bill is a bill integrally related to the proposal of the previous Government, along with our colleagues from the Green Party, to invest a billion dollars in improving the energy efficiency of our homes. Very interestingly, the Business Council for Sustainable Development analysed that idea and said there was about a 4:1 return on that investment. If I recall correctly, around $4.3 billion of return could be accounted for from the $1 billion of investment in improving the thermal dynamics of our homes. So will that bill proceed?
The Immigration Bill, Mr Speaker, is one that I know you have supported in your past roles and know well, and, as you know, it is very important legislation that commands bipartisan support and has been in gestation for some while. We hope that that bill will proceed apace.
Of some interest to me in my former role was the Public Health Bill. It is landmark legislation, a once-in-30-years rewrite, and it has been the subject of extensive consultation. It really is important that the new Government comes clean here. There was much debate on the non-communicable diseases provisions and the ability, over time and subject to due process, to set standards for non-communicable diseases and, in particular, to target the obesity epidemic, which is rife in our communities. What is the new Government going to do with that bill? Will it carry it over? Is it going to amend it? What price has been paid for the support of the fast-food and big-sugar industries?
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Gerry will know about that.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am sure Gerry will know about that.
There is the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. When National was in Opposition it was responsible for one of the greatest double-crosses in my time in Parliament. Having at one point indicated that it would support a trans-Tasman approach to the regulation of therapeutic goods, it finally said that it would not. So we have a bill in the motion on the Order Paper whose future needs clarifying. The existing legislative base is some 30 years old, and is in dire need of an update. If that bill is not to proceed, what, then, will happen?
There is the Regulatory Improvement Bill. This really gives a very clear picture to the public of the very busy agenda that was being run by the former Government. It was a surprise to some to hear in the Speech from the Throne that regulatory improvement, or cutting unnecessary red tape, is somehow a new idea that just arose in a road to Damascus sort of way. I acknowledge the work of the member for Epsom in co-sponsoring and contributing to that bill. It was worked out across this House and contains many provisions that all members would agree to. There are times when we need strong regulations, but there is no point in having regulation for its own sake, and unnecessary red tape would be opposed by members across the House. If this bill is to proceed, what, then, was the content of the Speech from the Throne on this issue about?
The Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill will be of interest to working New Zealanders. In the previous decade of a National-led Government, the minimum wage was raised by some 70c. That was about 7c per annum. It was an insult to working New Zealanders and far less than the rate of inflation. Will the Government carry over this latest increase to the minimum wage? One hopes that it will, because we know that, even on $12.75 an hour, many New Zealanders are struggling. Will Government members continue the record of the current Opposition in continuing to increase minimum wages by a substantial margin, year on year? These are important questions to which New Zealanders deserve answers.
I could go on, but I will not, in view of the time. I think this small sample of the bills that are in the motion on the Order Paper is sufficient—[Interruption]—well, it will be rather a long conclusion, then—to show New Zealanders that life did not start on 8 November, and that good ideas in Government did not just come down as manna from heaven, albeit they have been put forward this morning by our highly esteemed Governor-General. Much good work was going on, which brings us to the point that the platform that the current Government inherited from the outgoing Government was one of the soundest in the Western World. I particularly wish to acknowledge the outgoing Minister of Finance, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, who left New Zealand with roughly half the gross debt per GDP that we had inherited from the previous Government—from 35 percent down to 17 percent. Of course, that will come up after the dinner break, when we consider the scurrilous taxation bill. What exactly are the projections for that debt going forward? Will they go all the way back to 35 percent, where they were the last time we hauled those members’ collective butts out of the mire? That is what New Zealanders want to know. Will those members turbocharge debt levels? Will it be mana-enhancing for New Zealanders to be so far in the shtook? That is what we want to know, ladies and gentlemen.
What will happen to this minimum wage bill, what will happen to this taxation bill, and how can the new Government, in the face of this comprehensive panoply of work, create the impression that somehow all things begin anew, that somehow all good things came along on the campaign trail, like some road to Damascus experience? What did those members promise New Zealanders? They promised New Zealanders that every good thing in the motion on the Order Paper will continue; that everything from the previous Government that they want will remain in place, just with a new face hopping from cloud to cloud, as I believe some people described it. Well, it will not take long for New Zealanders to realise that that hope is a faint one. It will not take long for the sheep’s clothing to slip from the wolf—I would say about 5 minutes after the dinner break. It will not take long before we get the first hints of the true agenda. Was it not interesting that the Speech from the Throne did not mention the 90-day sacking bill?
Hon Darren Hughes: Why was that?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Why was that bill not front and centre? Why was the issue of employment relations not on the list? I am sure that Rodney Hide proposed it. Why did it get dropped from the Speech from the Throne? I ask why it is not on the 100-day agenda, but somehow it has occupied the first day of business in this House. Is it a case of favours to be repaid? Is it constituencies to be recognised? Is it a forewarning of things to come from this Government?
Ladies and gentlemen, I commend the motion on the Order Paper to public attention for two reasons. It shows the solid programme of work that this incoming Government has inherited. It shows the strong state of the economy, which has been able to fund the minimum wage increase, the business tax reductions, and the investment in home rebuilding and insulation—all of those good things.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, ā, kia ora tātou e te Whare. Ko tāku noa ake he tautoko i ngā mihi ki a koe e te Kaihautū o te Whare. I mihia koe e tō mātou kaihautū a Pita Sharples, ko tāku he tautoko ake. Ka mutu, ka huri ngā whakaaro ki te hunga kua ngaro. Waiho rātou kia moe. Anei te hunga ora e hui nei i tēnei pō, tēnā koutou, kia ora tatou. Ko tāku paku wāhanga nei e te Kaihautū he mihi ki ngā mema Māori hou kua tae mai ki roto i ngā pakitara o te Whare. Ka mihi ki ngā maunga, ka mihi ki ngā awa. Kai mahue ake tētahi me pēnei rawa te kōrero, e te iti, e te rahi kua tau mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us, the House. I want to simply endorse the tributes to you, Mr Speaker of the House. Our leader Dr Pita Sharples acknowledged you, and I support it. Further to that, thoughts turn to those who have passed away. Let them rest there. Gathered here tonight are the living, so greetings to you and to us. A small part for me is to acknowledge the presence of new Māori members within the confines of the House. I acknowledge the mountains and rivers. In case someone is left out, let me say to the meek and the mighty who have arrived here, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all.]
The Māori Party is pleased to support Government motion No. 4 to reinstate an enormous amount of work—a huge programme of legislation to be carried over to this Parliament. We are genuinely pleased that the work programme is crammed full of important issues to occupy this House of Representatives. There are a number of significant matters that we seek to advance and progress during this term of Parliament.
Within the Māori Affairs portfolio there are four Māori Affairs bills for consideration. The bills of immediate priority are the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill and the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. These are both areas that are of great interest to my constituency. The Māori Trustee Amendment Bill is designed with the aim of creating a stand-alone entity, and we think that is a pretty good idea. However, there is still more work to be done. The other priority is the intention to progress the legislation vesting Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke reserve. These are issues of considerable interest to Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao and Ngāti Whakaue tribal nations of the Te Arawa confederation.
We are obviously keen to advance the legislation to progress the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. There is considerable interest, of course, in progressing the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, particularly in view of the interest this legislation will have in regard to the wider issues of water ownership and claims by various iwi. To that end, I acknowledge Dr Cullen for his work as the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the work he did in advancing claims.
I want to make particular reference to the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill and the Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill. We came under attack from the Opposition prior to the dinner break, so I want to make a few things clear. The Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004—if members did not know—remains a festering sore in the hearts and minds of tangata whenua throughout the motu. Indeed, it was the issue on which our party was established, and the issue on which 40,000 New Zealanders marched to Parliament only to be greeted by a Government that treated these people with an element of disdain. It is an issue that still continues to motivate our artists and our writers to speak out about the injustice dealt to Māori on that day; injustices that kapahaka teams in competition throughout the country still immortalise on stage; injustices that our young generation is speaking out about in the Ngā Manu Kōrero Speech Competitions to those who will listen. E hoa mā, do not worry, it is not going away.
Some members of the Opposition seem to want to chuckle and criticise this notion of mana enhancement. For the benefit of members, mana enhancement is recognising that another party has a valid point of view—a different point of view. Māori Marsden described three broad interpretations of the notion of mana: mana atua, God-given power; mana tūpuna, power from the ancestors; and mana tāngata, the authority derived from personal attributes. When mana whenua took the initiative to hīkoi in opposition to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, there was much at stake. The least that the Government could have done was to listen. Instead, and unfortunately to their shame, their leader chose Shrek and the rest is history, as you know. That is not a concept of mana enhancement that the Māori Party wishes to be a part of.
I want to put on record that the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill is still, very much, significant legislation on the Order Paper. This bill is about a due process for Māori to verify ownership of the foreshore and seabed, the principal of equality before the law, and righting injustice. It is also about principle, leadership and property rights. It is a bill that arose out of a decision made on 20 June 2003, when the Labour Government announced that steps would be taken to ensure absolute Crown ownership of sea and land not privately owned. It claimed to do this in the interests of all New Zealanders, yet “New Zealanders” excluded tangata whenua. Our bill—the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill—provides us with the desperately needed space in our nation to truly open up the debate, to listen to each other, and to recreate equitable access to justice. Talking together is vital to our progress as a nation. Hearing our different views is the way forward in leading us to a better nation.
That, e hoa mā, is precisely what happened in negotiating the relationship in the confidence and supply arrangements; that is, a commitment to review the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As a previous speaker, Dr Cullen, made an allegation that the Māori Party had failed to progress the repeal bill in the last Parliament, I want to set the record straight. The Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill was selected for debate on 12 October 2006. Towards the end of 2006 my colleague Tariana Turia was invited to speak at an international conference on the day that the bill was scheduled to come up for its first reading. A request was made for leave to reschedule the bill at the next available appointment. That timeslot was never to appear. Each fortnight we would watch with amazing regularity as somehow our bill would slip further down the Order Paper, and who ran the Order Paper? The Labour Government. Who slowed the bill down? The Labour Government. One has to wonder why the control of graffiti in Manukau, the vesting of Lancaster Park in Christchurch, the Bishop Suter Art Gallery in Nelson and the Auckland Domain tennis courts were accorded greater importance than the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill, as the bill kept getting shafted to the bottom of the pile.
That is not to say by any means that these matters I just mentioned were not important. Every issue that comes to Parliament has a special relevance to its community, but our curiosity as a nation must surely be adjusted and we have to wonder why it is that the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill kept being relegated to low priority. In the light of this experience can I say how positive it has been to be invited to participate in a Government that has not been afraid to face the tough issues. Mana enhancement allows us to work together through differences, rather than shut the door. As part of working through differences, we welcome the opportunity to review the application of the legislation to ascertain whether it adequately maintains and enhances mana whenua. It is a rather dramatic turnaround of events that no one could have predicted; from continually sliding down the Order Paper and priorities in one Government to now working together with the Government to prepare agreed terms of reference for review by 28 February 2009. That is mana-enhancing.
If repeal is necessary, the Government will ensure that there is appropriate protection in place to ensure that all New Zealanders enjoy access to the foreshore and seabed through existing and potentially new legislation. That is mana-enhancing. I want to assure the member for the Greens Metiria Turei that the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is still a very firm fixture in an ongoing number of our priorities, and we look forward to their support as we work through the review. The policies of injustice do not fade away over time. They exist, they persist, and they remain until rectified, and we intend to follow that through.
We are seeking the goodwill and courage of Parliament to open up an opportunity for the nation to debate a fundamental issue of human rights, property rights, and access to justice. We celebrate the significant achievement we have made in negotiating an agreement in which the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is up front—an absolute priority. Our people have shown in the past 168 years that they respect the courts of this land, because they have taken, and continue to take, their land rights issues through this process. It is a sad day for this country when our property rights’ access to justice through due process is denied by Parliament. We have the chance to right the wrongs. We sincerely and genuinely believe that the agreement we have achieved with the National Government will allow us to succeed in the outcomes that we seek as a nation. Kia ora tātou.
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I too take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to your position in this House, and to congratulate your deputy and assistants. We look forward to your impartiality in navigating through the debates yet to come.
In taking a brief call on this carry-over motion in relation to the business of the House, I make a number of comments. Firstly, I am pleased that the carry-over motion includes a number of Treaty settlement bills, because I know that the progress made by Dr Michael Cullen in that regard has received widespread support amongst iwi throughout the country and that they would like to see those bills progressed. I am also pleased that that was referred to by Mr Key in the Speech from the Throne.
I also wish to highlight an area that may need some clarification by the Government in regard to the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill. When that bill was going through the House, it was objected to by both National and the Māori Party. I think it would be of interest to a number of members in the House for those parties to clarify their position on the bill, because if the fund that was proposed to be set up as a development fund to aid and assist Māori, going forward, was to be clawed back by, perhaps, Māori affairs or by National Government interests for other purposes, that would be a matter of great interest to members, and certainly to members of the Opposition.
I will briefly allude to the comments made on the foreshore and seabed issue. We have learnt from minority parties that no amount of dancing on a pinhead can get away from the fact that the reason why the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill was deferred in the last Parliament was that it was at the request of the Māori Party. No amount of posturing in the House and setting some history to that matter can get away from the fact that at the request of the Māori Party, the bill was deferred. Indeed, the bill was not supported by National in Opposition at the time. It will be very interesting in Parliament, going forward, to see whether the Government intends to pick up that bill, or whether it intends to implement the Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill, which represents an agreement reached with iwi under the existing legislation aimed at protecting the interests and rights of iwi in the foreshore and seabed. Ngāti Porou too would be very interested if the Government intended to pull away from that. So although points have been made by the Māori Party that it is the independent voice of Māori in this House, that is contrary to the position put by iwi on that bill that they are the Treaty partner, that they see some gains in protecting and preserving their customary interests under the bill, and that the bill must go forward.
Let us also be really clear, as the Māori Party has made a point of stating its position on the bill, that it has the ability, under this ACT, National, and Māori Party agreement, to negotiate some support for its repeal bill if it believes so strongly in it. The Maori Party is obviously unable to do that, so no amount of posturing in the House can get away from the fact that there is no support for the repeal of the legislation.
We too would support a review of the foreshore and seabed legislation, because we see iwi taking up the opportunity to reach agreements that protect their customary rights under the existing legislation, and only time will tell whether the positive implementation of legislation in this area will assert rights for Māori. So although the Māori Party may dance on a pinhead on the issue of the foreshore and seabed, quite clearly it is up to this National Government to state where it is putting its stake in the sand on that issue. Thank you.
The Government has chosen to put the reinstatement motion into the urgency motion, thereby inviting a much higher level of scrutiny by the Opposition parties than would ordinarily be the case on a procedural motion such as this. The point the Labour Party has been making is that we are looking for some rationale for how these bills have been chosen to be part of a reinstatement motion. I think it is important that we have the opportunity to go through that, and to make sure that the work of this Parliament, when it is set out by way of this motion, is appropriately done.
Before I get on to the substance of my contribution, I want to pick up on some of the points made by the Māori Party whip, Te Ururoa Flavell. He made a number of assertions—many of them derogatory towards the Labour Party—and I think it is important that we set the record straight. The most important thing about the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill that sits as part of this reinstatement motion is that it is a member’s bill in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia, who now of course is a National Government Minister—the bill will have to pass into the name of a non-member of the executive. But the bill is a member’s bill. It sat on the Order Paper as a members’ order of the day.
So when Te Ururoa Flavell said that the Labour Government controlled when that bill came up he was absolutely 100 percent wrong. Every second Wednesday the members’ orders of the day are entirely within the purview of members of the House. Every single bill that he mentioned as coming in above Tariana Turia’s bill came in as a members’ order of the day. It was not within the purview of the Government, and I think it was very unfair of him to imply that somehow Labour played a role in the priority given to the bill.
The reason the bill kept being pushed down the Order Paper was that the member in charge of the bill, the Hon Tariana Turia, continually deferred the bill from coming up for debate. Once the bill had been deferred, other bills went in front of it on that day, which is how parliamentary procedure works. Te Ururoa Flavell shakes his head, but the records of the Business Committee will show that the reason that bill was never voted for by the previous Parliament was that the Māori Party chose not to have it debated on the floor of the House.
I understand why the Māori Party chose that. The reason the Māori Party chose not to have the bill debated on the floor of the House and brought to a vote was that it knew it would have lost that vote. The reason it would have lost the vote is that John Key, when he became the Leader of the Opposition—
Hone Harawira: But you would have voted against it.
Hon DARREN HUGHES: —gave the Hon Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia the impression that as the new leader, after Don Brash had gone, he was prepared to support the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill. The Māori Party co-leaders acted on that premise, and it was not until the last minute, when John Key flip-flopped on that and refused to support the bill, that the Māori Party then decided to deny it.
I heard the member for Te Tai Tokerau, Hone Harawira, call out defiantly that Labour was going to vote against the bill, anyway. He misses one important point: Labour was a minority Government. If National had supported the Māori Party along with the Green Party, and if other parties like ACT had supported the repeal, it would have got the vote in the last Parliament. The reason the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill was never passed was that the National Party double-dealt the Māori Party. That is why I wanted to raise that matter in rebuttal to Te Ururoa Flavell, because when he talks about the mana-enhancing agreement, let me be clear. The Labour Party believes that there can be mana-enhancing agreements, but we find it a little bit rich to be told about mana atua, mana tūpuna, and mana tāngata, and then be told that the evidence of this mana enhancement is to abstain from voting in Parliament. I find it hard to believe that it is a mana atua arrangement when one’s vote is to abstain behind the National Party, so let us not have that.
When that was going on, the National members were all in support of what Te Ururoa Flavell was saying. I called out earlier to the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and I asked: “What about one standard of citizenship?”, because that used to be how most of the existing National MPs were elected. They were elected on the back of one standard of citizenship, which was an anti-Māori position. Chris Finlayson smiled and said: “That was ages ago.” Only 2 weeks with a ministerial warrant, and the National MPs have already forgotten why they are there.
But I want to come to the reinstatement motion, because a lot of bills have been chosen to go into this motion but we cannot see the rationale.
We were told today in the Speech from the Throne that the past 10 years was a decade of missed opportunities, yet everything on the Order Paper is going to be what the Labour-led Government was proposing in office. The National Government is picking up every single bill that Labour had, even though National has said it was a decade of missed opportunities—and that, of course, misses the point that every party policy on which it campaigned on November 8 was a Labour policy.
Let us go through some of the bills for which we are asking for a rationale from the Leader of the House and his key supporters sitting over there. The first is the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill. This bill does not need to be picked up by the Government, because the New Zealand Government is going to have a committee to decide whether climate change exists, and the whole world is going to stop and wait while the New Zealand Parliament, and the 3 percent ACT Party that is driving this, decides whether the world is going to learn whether there is global warming induced by humans. I cannot see why this bill is needed when the world is waiting for the bright lights of the National-led Government in New Zealand.
Then there is the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I cannot understand why the Government is picking this bill up, because we were always told that the Electoral Integrity Act was a terrible control mechanism by political parties. The only reason I can think that the Government is picking this up is that it does not believe it can hold all the members inside the National caucus during this term of Parliament. I believe that is why the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is getting a second wave of life out of the National Party. When we start to go through some of the disappointed people, we can understand why that might be. Tau Henare is in the House tonight purely to make sure the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is not picked up, because he is ready to walk. He is ready to make the big hīkoi over to the Māori Party, where he believes his enormous talents—self-described—will be recognised as a consequence of the Government formation. He will cross the floor tonight against this reinstatement motion to make sure the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is not picked up. I ask who else will not be in the caucus. Well, I see David Bennett in the House. Now, how David Bennett is not on the front bench—
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Who?
Hon DARREN HUGHES: Members ask who, but that is very unfair. He is a very distinguished member who should have been included in the executive, because he made big promises about transport in the Waikato area. In fact, he got his figures wrong by $400 million, but that will not bother the Minister of Finance—he is constantly getting the numbers wrong in this respect. He should have been included, and I think the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is aimed at him.
It is hard to believe that Allan Peachey was not included as a member of the executive. He wrote a book about education, and whether Anne Tolley has even read a book about education remains to be debated. Allan Peachey wrote one, and that shows that he may be looking for this bill. We want a rationale from Government members about why this should be. And the Government whips—I ask why the Government whips were not put into LTDs and driven around Wellington at the present time. They are constantly telling us what talented parliamentarians they are. I ask why they were left out of the executive. I think this bill is a control mechanism by the Government to try to make sure it can keep control of its parties. I want to know why that bill is being introduced.
I want to know why the Oaths Modernisation Bill is part of this reinstatement motion. We heard Hone Harawira’s oath that he authored yesterday, and I think this bill is being put in here to make sure that he can give effect to what he was saying in regard to his swearing in yesterday. There are other bills on which I want to know whether local members of Parliament have been consulted. I see the member of Parliament for Palmerston North in the Chamber tonight, my friend Iain Lees-Galloway. I ask whether he was consulted on the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. I suspect he was not consulted on this bill, and he is the person with the local knowledge to know whether the new Parliament should cover that.
Then there is the Public Health Bill. This is of enormous interest to the Government, because this is a bill that Jackie Blue—I believe—and Jo Goodhew raised all sorts of matters about in the last Parliament, because they were concerned about hairdressers. If I remember, that was the big issue for them before the election, and covered by the Public Health Bill. That was obviously a confidence motion for the Government in its caucus, and that should be covered by that point. I know that the Public Health Bill with regard to hairdressers will be of enormous interest to the Minister of Defence at the present time, because Dr Wayne Mapp is sporting a slightly different appearance than he had before the election. He may well want to take an interest in that provision; it could be the real issue he wants to take care of.
The Rail Network Bill is of enormous interest to the Labour Party, because of its commitment to public transport, and making sure that we get those issues and, particularly, the State-owned assets requirement of the rail network that we need to make sure New Zealand has a 21st century rail network. We have had no view from the National Government as to whether it is supporting KiwiRail. We have not heard a rationale for why that bill should be coming in. The previous Government was told by Bill English, now Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, that if we bought the railways back, a National Government would immediately sell it. So we are waiting to see whether the “for sale” sign will go up now.
There are two other reports of select committees that I want to mention. The first is the report of the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation—the Cullen fund. Of course, that was one of the missed opportunities of the decade—apparently! However, that report formed a key part of the Speech from the Throne today in terms of the economic stimulus that the Government was mentioning it wanted to undertake. Secondly, I am very surprised the Government has picked up the report of the Commerce Committee in respect of New Zealand Post Ltd, because that report mentions in glowing terms the contribution of Kiwibank to the New Zealand Post Group.
Now, Kiwibank is something that the Labour Party is very proud of having introduced, with Jim Anderton’s Progressive party, to make sure that there was a banking option for all New Zealanders. Not one single branch of any bank anywhere in New Zealand has closed since Kiwibank started up, because we have made sure that we have been able to put together real choice for New Zealanders in the banking system, and that is part of the report of the Commerce Committee. I want to know from the National Party why it is picking that up, because we want to see those issues debated fully before we get onto the work of the forty-ninth Parliament.
I move, That the question be now put.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I realise that the Hon Shane Jones is still grieving for not turning off all of our showers, but I think you should send a very clear message—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Points of order are meant to be terse and to do with order in this House. The member has not made it clear what the point of order is, and I am not sure his opening words had much to do with order. I will invite the honourable member to make it clear what his point of order is.
Hon RODNEY HIDE: I would like you to make it very clear to the Hon Shane Jones that we do not call out against another party when they are calling their vote, as happened. The votes are to be taken in silence, and certainly the sort of abuse that we heard from Shane Jones is totally unacceptable in this Parliament.
Mr SPEAKER: What the honourable member has just said in his point of order is of course correct. I did not hear what transpired. If the Hon Shane Jones said anything for which he should withdraw and apologise, I invite him to do so, but not having heard it, it is difficult for me to rule that he should do so.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it was less to do with whether it was unparliamentary—the language was not offensive in that way—I think the member is drawing attention to the fact that votes are taken in silence, and critical remarks shouted across the Chamber are not part of the voting procedure.
It is a very basic point of order. You had ruled on the point of order, and therefore my question to you is whether you should have heard the Hon Bill English after you had ruled. That was disputing your ruling, and not a good way for the Government to start.
Mr SPEAKER: That is sufficient. I think the point that was originally raised by the Hon Rodney Hide was a perfectly valid point, even though I criticised the manner in which Mr Hide originally raised it, and it is an indisputable part of our Standing Orders that votes, when they are being taken by the Clerk, must be taken in silence. I ask all members to respect that Standing Order, and I am sure the Hon Shane Jones will do so in the future, as will all other members. I think we should leave the matter there.