Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I move, That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move at the appropriate time that this bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and 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), and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 August 2006.

Te Arawa is a large confederation of iwi and hapū, consisting of approximately 40,000 members. Its traditional area of interest ranges from Maketū to Tongariro in the south. In 1987 the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board, on behalf of Te Arawa, lodged the Te Arawa lakes claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. Rather than proceeding with a hearing, Te Arawa entered into preliminary discussions with the Crown. For nearly 20 years Te Arawa has sought to settle its grievances in relation to the Te Arawa lakes. This bill will settle all of Te Arawa’s historical Treaty claims arising from Crown actions in relation to the lakes from 1840 to 1992 and any claims relating to the annuity payments. In settling these claims, the Crown acknowledges the spiritual, cultural, economic, and traditional importance of the lakes and their resources to Te Arawa.

The Crown also acknowledges that a number of Crown actions have caused grievance to Te Arawa. The Crown acknowledges, for example, that it failed to legislate for a sufficient number of fishing licences for Te Arawa in 1908, when it promoted legislation to address the problem of hardship. The Crown acknowledges that the introduction of exotic fish species significantly depleted the indigenous species upon which Te Arawa depended for food, hospitality, trade, and koha. The Crown further acknowledges that Te Arawa petitioned the Crown for several years concerning the depletion of indigenous species and access to new species, and that some members of Te Arawa were prosecuted for fishing without a licence in the lakes during that time.

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa, as part of its 1922 agreement regarding the lakes, when that annuity lost value materially as a result of inflation. Although the 1922 agreement is not challenged by this settlement, this bill will settle all Te Arawa’s historical claims relating to the lakes at any time between 1840 and 1992, including any claims relating to the 1922 agreement, the Native Land Amendment and Native Lands Claims Adjustment Act 1922, and the annuity payments pursuant to the 1922 agreement.

I wish at this time to acknowledge the work of the former Ministers of treaty negotiations the Hon Sir Douglas Graham and the Hon Margaret Wilson, whose efforts have culminated in the bill that is before this House today. I also wish to acknowledge the Hon Parekura Horomia and former Ministers of Māori Affairs whose efforts have contributed to this settlement.

In December 2004 Te Arawa overwhelmingly agreed to a settlement package to settle its historical grievances, by signing the deed of settlement. In developing the deed of settlement, both the Crown and Te Arawa agreed that the protection of the lakes and the protection of the public’s right to access and use the lakes were of critical importance. This bill gives effect to aspects of that agreement. The bill settles all of Te Arawa’s claims, including those in relation to the annuity to the lakes. It vests the fee simple estate of 13 lake beds in Te Arawa, with the Crown retaining ownership of the water column and the airspace above the lake beds. The bill records a formal apology to Te Arawa, to the tūpuna, to their descendants, and to the iwi and hapū of Te Arawa, for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi relating to the Te Arawa lakes. The bill provides a statutory acknowledgment to recognise Te Arawa’s long spiritual, cultural, historical, economic, and traditional associations with the lakes.

The bill provides a financial redress of $2.7 million to recognise the economic loss suffered by Te Arawa arising from breaches by the Crown of its treaty obligations in relation to the lakes. In doing so, the rights of the general public to access the lakes for recreational purposes are protected, as are existing structures and commercial uses. The fee simple estate of Lake Ōkaro remains vested in the Rotorua District Council.

The bill also establishes the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group as a joint committee under the Local Government Act 2002. The strategy group is made up of representatives from Environment Bay of Plenty, the Rotorua District Council, and the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. Its purpose is to advise on the sustainable management of the lakes.

The transfer of title to the lake beds and the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group addresses the grievances of Te Arawa, and engages both Te Arawa and the community in the management of the lakes. I think that is an important area of cooperation in this agreement. The bill makes it clear that this is a final settlement of all the historical claims Te Arawa has in relation to the 14 lakes.

I wish to assure the public that the Crown is confident of the validity of the claims settled by this bill, and has negotiated with the interests of the taxpayer in mind and in full cognisance of the fact that the lakes provide significant enjoyment for many New Zealanders. I also want to congratulate Te Arawa on the open and transparent way it has approached these negotiations. Te Arawa’s tenacity in dealing with a number of Governments over the years, and its willingness to have regard to the interests of New Zealand society as a whole in negotiating the settlement, are admirable, in my view.

Treaty settlement negotiations can, as members know, be difficult and occasionally contentious. Treaty settlement negotiations require the Crown to balance a range of interests. Challenges to settlements are not surprising, given the nature of the interests that are potentially at stake. In the course of the Crown’s negotiations with Te Arawa, a number of challenges were raised by some who were concerned about protecting their hapū interests. The Crown and Te Arawa worked to ensure that the issues raised by those people were addressed fairly.

This settlement has a high level of support from members of Te Arawa, with 93 percent of the eligible voters who participated in the deed of settlement ratification supporting the settlement offer. I wish to acknowledge those Te Arawa people, including those no longer with us, who suffered as a result of the Crown’s breaches of the treaty. E ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. To you the dead, farewell. This bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and Te Arawa into the future.

I wish to thank the other Ministers and departments involved in this settlement, and, in particular, the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister of Conservation, who all supported the process throughout. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty for working with Te Arawa and demonstrating the meaning of partnership with iwi. I believe the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Rotorua are in the gallery today, alongside a councillor from Environment Bay of Plenty. Their attendance, I think, as important representatives from local government, further demonstrates the support this bill enjoys from within the Rotorua community. I want to acknowledge the Office of Treaty Settlements for the work done in seeking a just and fair settlement. As New Zealanders, we can be proud that real and significant grievances are being recognised and settled peacefully, within the law.

In particular, I would like to take time to thank the past and present members of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board for their dedication and determination, on behalf of their people, to seek a resolution of their grievances. This bill will dissolve the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board and release it from its duties, allowing the Te Arawa Lakes Trust to take over.

The people of Te Arawa have waited a long time and worked very hard to realise the settlement of their historical treaty claims to the lakes. I consider the bill should therefore proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee and be reported back by 4 August 2006. That will allow the timely transfer of the settlement redress to Te Arawa.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the elders, the members of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board, the members of the newly established Te Arawa Lakes Trust, the Te Arawa negotiators, and the members of Te Arawa. They have been a constructive and conscientious group to work with, and their commitment on behalf of their people, their ancestors, and their descendants has led us to this historic event. I want to welcome those members of Te Arawa who are in the gallery, many of whom have travelled far to join us today, to observe and be part of this important moment. This is an opportunity for us all to restore the integrity in the relationship between Te Arawa and the Crown. With that, I have great pleasure and regard it a privilege to commend this bill to the House.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : It is appropriate that we acknowledge in this House those who have gone before us who were part of the Te Arawa iwi, and recognise that the discussions over these lakes have gone on for a great number of years. We should recognise that those discussions, by and large, were conducted in good faith, and that those who were party to them were participating in those discussions and decisions in a manner that was determined towards getting the best result for Te Arawa and for the rest of the nation.

When it comes to treaty settlements it is extremely important that the concept of full and final is well embedded. Although we freely admit that in most settlement cases—probably all—there is great generosity from the party being settled, when it comes to comparative values today versus the time of either the confiscation or other grievance, we none the less have to move forward, and we do not have opportunities like this one simply to keep relitigating issues that should have been dealt with once and for all. So although National Party members will participate fully in the select committee process that considers the bill and will ask many, many questions about the construction of the bill itself, as well as about the intentions of the settlement, we are not in a position today to support this reading.

I hope during the select committee we may come to understand why Te Arawa have got back into this negotiation today, when in 1922 they wrote to the King—I think it was George IV at the time—stating: “We thank you and Parliament for this year’s legislation, fulfilling all promises and engagements made to the Arawas since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, thus again proving that England’s stated word is a sacred bond capable of fulfilment.” I do not think we could get a more powerful statement accepting that an arrangement should endure.

National is prepared to recognise that the annuity needs to be tidied up. It is ridiculous. No one can do anything with such a small amount of money, so on a commercial basis, yes, we should increase it. We support that provision in the bill without reservation. But the mere fact that there is an annuity gives weight to the argument that the settlement in 1922, or in the years subsequent, was genuine and valid, and should have been considered full and final. If the Office of Treaty Settlements has some other view, then I want it to be made clear that it has never conveyed that viewpoint to National members. If the Government has another view, and has some reason to back it up, I want it to be made clear that it has never conveyed that viewpoint to us.

So although we appreciate that there is a great need to speed up the process of treaty settlements in this country, and a great need to move on from our times of grievance, we are not able to support the bill in its current state. We will take some convincing that those who have gone before—who made a decision, who accepted an undertaking from the Crown, and who complimented the Crown on the arrangement—were somehow wrong and were somehow duped, and that those who duped them somehow cheated them. That is not what the words of the letter say.

It is worth pointing out that although the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations says the Crown is very happy with the bill, Crown Law advised the Government that the settlement was not required. It advised that it was a political decision. If a Government makes a political decision, then it should say so. It should not dress it up as being the settlement of some sort of longstanding grievance.

Hon Dover Samuels: It’s a justice decision; you know that.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I believe that that letter to the King was sent with good intent. I do not think Te Arawa sent the letter to the King in 1922 as some sort of joke. I do not think their acknowledgment of the legislation as “fulfilling all promises and engagements made to the Arawas since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi” was just something out there in the ether that they could say then but that, 82 years later, their descendants could turn over. It worries a lot of New Zealanders that this process may never end. This bill, unfortunately, gives weight to that argument. It makes it difficult to move to the point that all New Zealanders would like to see where things are dealt with in a fairer way.

I say to Mr Samuels that the part of this that is unjust is, no doubt, the annuity. We do not have any problem with fixing that. It is a crying shame that it was not fixed a lot sooner. If it is such a deep, heartfelt thing for Mr Samuels, why was it not fixed when he had the ministry—he having sat on that side of the House for 6 or 7 years now?

As I said before, we as a party have a commitment to seeing Treaty settlements completed speedily. We have a view that grievances should be settled fairly, and that those grievances should be settled as a recognition, lawfully, that something was wrong. That is not the case here. It is very clear. The Crown’s own advisers are saying this is a political decision. Notwithstanding that, let me again give our assurance that although our vote will not be in favour of the bill today, our participation in the Māori Affairs Committee will be full and attentive. We will work to deliver a bill that does not see people back in this House in 82 years’ time saying that what we did today was somehow dishonourable and disreputable, and that they need to have another go at it.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : First of all, I thank members for their forbearance. Tihei mauri ora! Tuku mauri ora ki te wheiao ki te ao mārama. Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa tangata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Koutou hoki ngā rangatira, koutou hoki i kawe mai tēnei kaupapa i roto i ngā piki me ngā heke, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei te koa te hari, ka whakauru mai tēnei pire ināianei nā te mea, kei kite mai te iwi whānui o Aotearoa te hōhonutanga o te kaupapa nei. Tua atu i tēnā, te roanga ake i tatari mai koutou ki te whakataungia te kaupapa nei. Te hari au mō koutou.

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

[Behold the sneeze of life to the world of enlightenment and awareness. To the canoe and people of Te Arawa, to you the chiefs and especially those of you who were responsible for bringing this matter here despite the ups and downs, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all. It is pleasing and timely for this bill to be presented now so that the people of New Zealand can see the depth of this matter. Further to that, you have waited a long time to have this matter settled. I am overjoyed for you.]

The settlement between the Crown and Te Arawa hands ownership of the lakes to the Rotorua tribe; it vests the lake bed titles in the iwi. I must say the only difference between this issue and the Lake Taupō issue is that it involves more than one lake and the compensation is probably a little bit more than the Tūwharetoa settlement. The previous speaker raised concerns about the bill; if he and his party support the bill going to a select committee, that will provide the opportunity to raise those issues.

New Zealand First supports the bill as a settlement of a genuine historical grievance. We recognise that some members of Te Arawa have concerns about the terms of the settlement, but by supporting the referral of the bill our party is giving those people the opportunity to articulate their concerns to the select committee. The best thing is that the bill includes the transfer of 13 lake beds to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust, with the Crown retaining ownership of the water column and airspace. I think that Te Arawa needs to be recognised for the fact that they are sharing the responsibility of the care of what is essentially their asset with the rest of the community. I understand the Te Arawa Lakes Trust will include Environment Bay of Plenty, the Rotorua District Council, the Ministry of Fisheries, and the Department of Conservation.

The bill protects recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, and boating, and provides conditions under which such activities can take place. I know that some people within the Rotorua community, both Māori and non-Māori, do not support the bill, but given the support of a large number of those eligible to vote, it is worthy that the bill has been brought to the House and will be referred to a select committee.

The bill protects existing commercial activities, but new commercial activities and structures will require consent from the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. The bill puts Te Arawa in charge of the lakes, with the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty providing support. Te Arawa will not be liable for weeds or contamination within the lakes, but that is an issue that requires a concerted and combined strategy by all stakeholders to ensure the sustainability of the lakes. I have no doubt that the trust’s members will certainly address that issue. The bill provides for the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group to promote the sustainable management of the lakes, while recognising and providing for the traditional relationship of Te Arawa with their ancestral lakes.

The bill essentially has four parts. Part 1 outlines the purpose of the Act, which we are quite clear about; Part 2 provides cultural redress; Part 3 also contains other cultural redress; and Part 4 deals with miscellaneous provisions. I want to make it clear that New Zealand First supports the bill. I say that in spite of Te Arawa not coming to see us. But never mind, kei te pai. We believe in the kaupapa. Te Arawa owns the lake bed and subsoil strata, and that in itself gives it title. There might be some confusion about the seabed and foreshore issue. Some Māori may ask why what has been proposed in this bill cannot be proposed for the seabed and foreshore issue. But that is another matter.

In the cultural redress provision, rights and obligations of ownership are articulated. Firstly, the title is vested in the trustees and they hold it on behalf of all the people of Te Arawa. Secondly, a freehold estate in the lake beds is inalienable; that means they cannot put it on the market to get rid of it or mortgage it. No charge or mortgage is to be created. Transfer or transmission to trustees is permitted. Te Arawa is not liable for the weeds or contamination within the lakes, but I am quite sure the trust itself has a responsibility to ensure that that issue is controlled. Cultural redress also contains recreational activities being protected, and that includes but is not limited to swimming, boating, waterskiing, and fishing activities. So those people who have buildings on the lake shore have their entitlements protected. It provides conditions under which those activities may take place. Of course, there are recreational activities such as fishing and kayaking. In fact, what has taken off within Māoridom is waka ama. But we want to be sure that the bill protects existing structures—that structures that are currently in or on a Te Arawa lake bed are protected. Of course, the trust will need to do a structure audit. Conditions that apply to existing structures are set out and Te Arawa are not liable for existing structures. The bill talks about jetties, boatsheds, ramps, moorings, and other structures.

I want to make sure that the people of Te Arawa are quire clear that this is a final settlement of a historical claim. I know they have been waiting quite a long time to see this come to some conclusion, and I hope that the introduction of the bill and referral to the Māori Affairs Committee will go a long way towards settling this overdue issue.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I wish to acknowledge at the outset the people of Te Arawa who are here. As the deputy leader of the National Party said, we acknowledge and understand the significance and the importance of this issue to the people of Te Arawa. I grew up in Reporoa, so I am well familiar with Te Arawa’s relationship with the community and, indeed, with the lakes.

I wish to make some particular points for the record. There will obviously be an opportunity in the future to hear the submissions, to go through the material in the Māori Affairs Committee, and to consider things.

The first point to note is that I suggest that this is an unusual settlement. It is not of the same character as the settlements of Tainui, of the various iwi of the Taranaki area, and of various other iwi throughout the country. The reason is that this matter has already been subject to a settlement in the 1920s. That particular settlement was a result of a consensual process; it was not an imposed settlement. Everyone in this House would acknowledge that the situations of Tainui and of the Taranaki iwi, in particular, were quite different. There was a history of confiscation there as a result of the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s—a radically different situation from that of Te Arawa. In fact, it is worth noting that Te Arawa has had a particularly friendly relationship with the Crown, and that it has extended over a period beginning pre-1865 and continuing post-1865. I have to note, at least for the sake of historical accuracy, that that particular friendship was not always appreciated by neighbouring tribes, particularly during that era.

The reason I put that on the record is that that relationship flavoured the consensual nature of the 1920s settlement. As I said, it was not a settlement that was born out of war or of oppression; it was one that was freely and fairly negotiated. But today we are revisiting it. That is one of the concerns that National has raised in the past and raises today. Free and consensual settlements ought to endure, but, in fact, we are overturning this particular settlement.

I turn to the two particular aspects of significance. As Mr Brownlee has noted, the first element of the current settlement is the updating of the financial settlement. That part is very reasonable. The 1920s figure for the annuity ought to be updated, and there is a very particular reason why I say that. No one in the 1920s, whether on the side of the Crown or on that of Te Arawa, could have anticipated the level of inflation that occurred in the subsequent 86 years. This might seem a rather artificial statement to make, but the truth is that the 20th century experienced a vastly greater level of inflation than had ever, ever occurred in the history of mankind. In the 18th and 19th centuries, and in the centuries prior to them, inflation was virtually non-existent—it was almost an unknown concept. It is truly a creation of the 20th century, and to a significant degree it has disappeared in the last 10 years. So, in that sense, the annuity ought to be updated to remove, effectively, the effects of that inflation. That is being done and, indeed, it is being capitalised. National supports that particular aspect of the settlement, and we have recorded that support today.

The second part of the settlement, however—and I have to put it this way—is the complete reversal of the position of the 1920s settlement. In 1922 the lake beds were transferred to the Crown, effectively in return for the annuity. It was literally a sale, if you will. Today we are reversing that sale but actually updating the annuity, as well. So if we look at it in that sense, we find that we are reversing a situation where actual consideration was given to the transfer of the lake beds, and today are returning them as, let us say, a gift. But the effect of that is, of course, to call into question the enduring nature of consensual settlements.

I want to look more closely at the nature of the transfer of the lake beds. I noted that Pita Paraone said that it was really no different from the case of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Lake Taupō, and I certainly understand my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s concerns about, and interests in, that particular issue. This is more than just a symbolic transfer. There is actually quite a significant difference between the two situations. The Ngāti Tūwharetoa situation did not require legislation; it was a matter, essentially, of the Māori Land Court, and that was because the ownership had never been formally transferred in the way that occurred in the Te Arawa situation, in the 1920s.

The second point is that the ownership is intended to be more than merely symbolic. Certainly, that is how the Ngāti Tūwharetoa transfer was interpreted back then; perhaps there is some difference on that issue today. The legislation that we are presented with specifically states that Te Arawa can lease, for terms of up to 35 years, the lake beds. They can license—in fact, in perpetuity—the use of the lake beds, presumably for a fee. Mr Pita Paraone referred to the protection of existing interests, both those of the Crown, where there are particular interests, and also those of other owners. He referred to jetties, boatsheds, ramps, boathouses, and the like. In this instance, however, it will be completely in the power of Te Arawa, as I understand it, as owners, to allow people—or not, as the case may be—to build jetties, ramps, and so forth.

Tariana Turia: That’s right.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Indeed, as Tariana Turia has quite rightly said, that is a consequence of ownership that is intended to be more than a symbolic transfer. That is a very significant change indeed, and quite different, I suggest, from the situation of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. It is a complete reversal of the situation in the 1920s.

I might just conclude on this particular point. In many ways, and I noted this specifically some 2 years ago when these negotiations were being mooted, the Te Arawa settlement was intended to forecast what would happen with the foreshore and seabed. I suggest that in some respects at least—perhaps not many—it has done so. In fact, I guess the particular complaint of the Māori Party in particular is that the foreshore and seabed legislation does not mirror that of the Te Arawa case, where there is a true transfer of ownership. But, as many will know, that has caused real controversy in the region of Rotorua.

I conclude on this point. Lake beds, riverbeds, the foreshore in particular, and the seabed have historically been considered part of the commons—owned by all of us, all New Zealanders, irrespective of race and background, in common. This settlement sets a precedent whereby a large number of lakes in the North Island will now be owned by a particular group, Te Arawa. I understand that it is, obviously, due to the historic connection, but it is a revolutionary change and not one that National thinks is in the national interest.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : Te manuhiri tūārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira o Te Arawa kua tae tautoko mai i tēnei ahiahi, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.

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

[To the visitors from afar, to the elders and chiefs of Te Arawa who have come in support this afternoon, welcome, welcome, alight here.]

The return of the Te Arawa lakes to their rightful owners has been a very long time in coming, and the Greens are pleased to see this bill finally before the House. We warmly welcome Te Arawa and their bill to Parliament. We want, first, to recognise the incredibly hard work by the iwi and the negotiators on their behalf who have been working through the Government’s negotiation process. It is an extremely difficult and a very costly, time-consuming, and often truly heart-rending process.

It will come as no surprise to this House, and probably to pretty much anyone else, that the Greens have a continued and sustained objection to the Government’s Treaty claims settlement process, because we believe it is fundamentally unfair to the claimants. The redress generally offered by the Government pales in comparison with other redress for other issues—let us take the West Coast forests and the Titford settlement, for example. The conditions that iwi must agree to in order to gain redress for the wrongs committed in the name of this Parliament are, in our opinion, unconscionable. It still remains a serious problem that this Government refuses to properly inform and educate the community about the settlements as they arise, thereby leaving those communities vulnerable to the Māori bashing rhetoric and antics of irresponsible political parties. I will touch on that briefly a bit later on. I just want to make clear that our criticism of settlement bills has been, and will continue to be, squarely directed at the Government’s framework.

We were very impressed with the nature of the redress in this bill, and we fully support the return of the ownership of the lake beds to Te Arawa. We also fully support Te Arawa having a strong regulatory role over the lakes. I know it is not as strong as perhaps some people would have preferred. The fact is that there remain in our law opportunities for councils to delegate regulatory functions to iwi and hapū organisations, but not once, I understand, have those provisions ever been used to enable hapū and iwi to exercise those functions at a local level. I refer to things like being able to approve or not approve resource consents. It is the failure to use those mechanisms that causes major problems where hapū and iwi have responsibilities as mana whenua in the area, and could well take on those obligations, but councils refuse to allow that. We are very pleased to see in this bill at least some attempt to allow that.

For example, consents will be required from Te Arawa for the construction of new structures on the seabed. They can charge for the occupation of that space, and also regulate and manage new types of commercial activities on the lake beds. We think that those are very good provisions, and at least are a small start.

This bill demonstrates that the rights of other users can be catered for where title and ownership are shifted back to the rightful owners. In this case, public access to the lakes is guaranteed. Recreational activities, like swimming and picnics, remain open to all members of the public.

We were horrified that just a few years ago, particularly around 2004, the settlement of the claim regarding these lakes was used as a political football by the National Party to drum up opposition to Māori. That followed on from Don Brash’s racist speech, and occurred on the back of the foreshore and seabed issue. We considered that attack on Te Arawa showed just how deeply frightened Don Brash and the National Party were that Māori would have any kind of decision making over anything, including their own property—like the lakes. In one interview, when referring to the possibility that people may have to get permission from Te Arawa to put up a jetty in the lakes, Don Brash said: “It seems to me that that opens the way to all kinds of blackmail and extortion.” The Greens consider that comment to be absolutely disgusting. It shows just how much contempt Don Brash holds for Māori in this country.

But let us not forget, given the provisions of this bill, that the recognition of title and the capacity for management over these kinds of areas does not interfere with public rights, as described by the Government. Surely the Government can only reflect on its own shameful, and what I consider abusive, behaviour in promoting and passing the foreshore and seabed legislation.

We fully support the return of the lakes to Te Arawa, and we expect that these old, new, rightful owners will be able to provide the necessary will that should see the eventual cleaning up and restoration of the lakes. Those lakes are incredibly precious and beautiful, and of extraordinary ecological and spiritual importance to everybody. But they are dying, and they are dying as a result of the pollution caused by human activity over the last 80 years, when the lakes have been out of the hands of their hapū. Leakage from septic tanks is a classic example. It has caused enormous problems. The deforestation of the surrounding areas, which are pumice soils, has caused continuing problems, and there remains the very serious issue of pollution from farm runoff, which is causing nutrient loading in the lakes. Much of the soil water contributes to nutrient loading, and it can take up to 30 years for the nutrients on the land to make their way down into the water itself. That means that the damage from 30 years ago will take many more years before it comes to fruition. It also means that there is an absolutely desperate need for urgent action now.

The hapū and iwi—Te Arawa—are committed to taking that action. When I met with Te Arawa about the bill, I was really pleased to hear about the plans to restore the wetlands around the lakes. That is just one example of action. The wetlands are incredible ecosystems and many have been lost in New Zealand because they were drained for farmland, which then caused the nutrient problems. Wetlands are highly sensitive. They are key indicators of the health of an area as well as key indicators of climate change, and they operate as a critical protection mechanism for lakes and other waterways. So hearing that from Te Arawa reminds us that hapū and iwi have a huge capacity to manage areas of ecological importance outside and separate from the Government structures that are in place but have failed to do that so far. We have incredible faith and belief that hapū and iwi structures are capable of doing that work, and are committed to doing it long term.

During the select committee process we will hear from other mana whenua and hapū from around the area who are unhappy about the settlement. We welcome those views and submissions, because it is only by hearing about those stories, those concerns, and the failures of the process that we can really establish systems to address them. I know it can be very difficult for the claimant groups to hear the issues being relitigated, but it is still important to have all of those issues heard. I certainly look forward to hearing both from Te Arawa and from those hapū at the select committee. The Greens thank and welcome Te Arawa for all the work they have done so far. Kia ora.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : Otirā Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa tangata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai. Ehara mā te pōtiki e tū ki te whakatau atu i a koutou, koirā hoki e mihi au ki taku hoa rangatira nō Te Rōpū Tōrangapū o Aotearoa Tuatahi, nāna koutou i whakatau. Nō reira e Pita, tēnā koe. Otirā, kia ora tātou.

[Indeed to you the canoe and people of Te Arawa, greetings to you, greetings to you, welcome, welcome. It is not for the youngest to stand and welcome you here, and that is why I acknowledge my chiefly colleague from New Zealand First who did that. So thank you Pita, and greetings to us all.]

It probably comes as no surprise to the House that I stand to support the legislation. I am quite disappointed with some of the remarks that have been made in the House, particularly in relation to the history of the Te Arawa lakes and their confiscation, but I will address some of those matters throughout the duration of my speech.

These claims relate to the 14 lakes that were the subject of the 1922 agreement between Te Arawa and the Crown. The lakes were: Ngāhewa, Ngāpouri, Ōkareka, Ngākaro, Ōkataina, Rerewhakaaitu, Rotoehu, Rotoiti, Rotomā, Rotomahana, Rotorua, Tarawera, Tikitapu, and Tūtaeīnanga. Te Arawa are here in the House today, and I acknowledge their presence here. I do not know what it is that Opposition members do not understand about the history of Te Arawa, but surely their presence here today would totally rule out the statements made by National’s deputy leader, Gerry Brownlee. In fact, the transfer of the Te Arawa lakes from Te Arawa to the Crown was not a willing arrangement. Te Arawa were not willing participants in that arrangement, and they are here today to make that clear to the House.

The importance of the lakes to Te Arawa cannot be underestimated. Perhaps the only way to illustrate that in contemporary times is to compare them to the importance that every Greek citizen places on the Parthenon, a Sherpa places on Mount Everest, and the indigenous people of Australia place on Ayers Rock. As indigenous peoples we all have our iconic landmarks with which we have a spiritual and an ancestral association, and for Te Arawa that association manifests itself in the lakes. The significance of this bill is that it ensures that the ownership of the lake beds returns to Te Arawa. As well as that, seats on the committee that manages the day-to-day affairs of the lakes will be set aside for Te Arawa representatives. As the previous speaker from the Green Party made very clear to the House, Te Arawa will have the opportunity to exercise their ownership rights over the lakes on that committee. They will have a legal voice at the table for the first time in many decades. The leverage of lake bed ownership and the property rights that flow from that mean they will be a very, very significant economic voice in Rotorua, and indeed Te Arawa whānui.

By way of background comment, I say that for centuries the lakes provided a lifeline for Te Arawa. They were a food basket, a shelter, and a highway. Much blood and many tears have been spilt over time. From the hinterland to the shores of the lakes, the stories of a proud people are etched in every nook, every bay, every outcrop, every sandbank, and every rocky reef, even to the depths of the lakes. In some lakes, sadly, lie the kōiwi of many of our tūpuna, whose lives were tragically lost as a result of the Tarawera eruption and of intertribal encounters. Many hapū and iwi of Te Arawa have relied on, and cared for, the lakes over generations. Over time, the lakes have become important to the people of the Rotorua district and to the nation as a whole. The lakes are a jewel in the crown for the tourism industry in Te Arawa, and Te Arawa themselves have played a major part in its development. The return of the lake beds to Te Arawa embodies the meaning of the Crown, local government, and Te Arawa working together for the preservation of the lakes and the betterment of the nation.

The bill also contains an apology from the Crown to Te Arawa. The acknowledgment of the injustices suffered by Te Arawa is long overdue. The Crown failed to honour its commitments to them. I commend this Government for introducing a bill to this House that contains a formal Crown apology to Te Arawa, their tūpuna, and their descendants for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged by the Crown. In its most traditional sense there is no word for “sorry”, particularly when we compare an apology in English with how we would do it in our own language. So what purpose does the apology serve? It is, of course, given for the benefit of the Crown, so that it can somehow wash its hands of how it treated an honourable and a noble people. It is penance or self-atonement. Ina rā, kei te Kaihautu, kua puta te reo tāpae ripenetā a te Karauna ki a Te Arawa mō āna hē, mō āna hara ki a Te Arawa anō, kia tū wātea te Karauna kia rite te kukupā, te harakore, kia mā te hukarere.

[Madam Assistant Speaker, the Crown has made its penance to Te Arawa itself for its wrongdoings and injustices in the past to clear the way for an impartial settlement.]

In my own language, I have put in a more appropriate way an apology from the Crown to Te Arawa.

Notwithstanding that, some extreme views in opposition to the proposal to return the lakes to Te Arawa have been expressed by some members of the Rotorua community—and by the wider Bay of Plenty community. However, Te Arawa are here today. They have taken a lot of criticism during the negotiation process, but they are determined to see the settlement of this longstanding grievance and to move on. They are seeking justice, and I believe justice has been partially served here today.

But I am sickened by the way that the media have given what I would call the red-necked communities of our country the opportunity to promote their vile agendas. Not only in this case but in many other cases, we have heard from claimant groups around the country about the issues they have had to deal with, and the complications they have had to confront, in relation to their claims. The media have chosen not to put their stories forward but instead to promote the views of those who have opposed them. That is a sad indictment on our communities and on our country. There is no grey area here. The Crown confiscated the lakes from Te Arawa. There is no grey area; it is quite clear. The confiscation was wrong in 1922, and the people charged with dispossessing Te Arawa of their lakes knew that, but it is my sincerest hope that Te Arawa accept the Crown’s apology. It will be unreserved, and it will remove the deep-seated shame that some members of continuing Governments have had to bear over the decades.

I am saddened by the position that the elected member for Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell, has chosen to take in relation to this settlement. We know that those who criticise the settlement are ignorant, whether intentionally or otherwise, but they are a minority. In response to Gerry Brownlee’s statements to this House, I say that the Hansard records will confirm that Te Arawa was forced into accepting an annuity in return for the loss of the lakes. The Government of the day presented Te Arawa with a “take it or leave it” deal. Even though they chose to take it, they were never willing participants in the transaction. Therefore, for them the deal was never full and final. Just a few years later, and to the credit of Te Arawa, they donated an entire annuity to the Government’s war effort—an effort that saw them lose many of their young men. The price of citizenship has been very high for Te Arawa.

Full and final reparation can never be made to Te Arawa, yet they are here today in this House. They are prepared to let bygones be bygones, in an effort to move forward and to take current and future generations with them. The descendants, or the mōrehu here today, bear witness to the writing of the final chapter of a book that will restore to them, perhaps, a sense of redemption at last. The bill acknowledges that Te Arawa have endured an arduous struggle in the pursuit of their claims for redress and compensation from the Crown.

I join with my colleague the Hon Mark Burton in commending the Te Arawa negotiators, whose commitment and passion have enabled us to reach this stage of the settlement process. I also congratulate and thank the representatives of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board for their commitment to the process. I say that while this grievance passes into history, another Te Arawa icon will also pass into history—that is, the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board. It will be renewed as the Te Arawa Lakes Trust, and that is a clear commitment to Te Arawa moving forward.

I want the general public to acknowledge the decades of missed opportunities that the dispossession of the lakes has brought to Te Arawa. They were forced to stand back and watch as others developed the lakes and prospered. That prosperity was founded largely upon Te Arawa’s dispossession. This settlement is an important milestone for Te Arawa and for the Crown. The settlement redress will provide for Te Arawa the resources to assist in developing their economic and social well-being.

But I also want to reiterate that the settlement pertains only to Te Arawa’s interest in the lakes. Other negotiations currently in the pipeline will see other historical claims of Te Arawa settled and come to an end. Te Arawa in the future will be a powerful economic force in Rotorua and in the Bay of Plenty. Indeed, like many groups who have entered into settlements, they will be an economic force in this country and be recognised for that.

So, with that wave of your finger, Madam Assistant Speaker, I congratulate again the negotiators of Te Arawa and the people of Te Arawa who have come a very, very long way to witness this historic step in the settlement of their longstanding grievance. Hoi anō, kia ora tātou.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe. Kai te Whare tēnā koutou. Te Arawa Waka, Te Arawa tangata, tēna koutou katoa. Nau mai, haere mai e kawe nei te kaupapa nei ki roto i tēnei Whare. Whakapiri mai. I ō koutou mate kia tū honohono ā tātou mate i tēnei rangi, ā, haere ngā mate. Ā, ko te mea nui kua tae pai mai koutou. Nau mai, haere mai rā.

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to those of you in the House. To the canoe and the people of Te Arawa, greetings to you all. Welcome to you who bring this matter into this House. Draw closer. In respect of your deaths that bond with our ones today, I say farewell the dead. And in respect of you, the main thing is that you have arrived here safely, so welcome, welcome indeed.]

The Māori Party stands today with a heavy heart. We honour the presence of Te Arawa here today and we think of those who are with them but are not physically present. We think of those who have passed on who were negotiating with the Crown over the future of the lakes some 80 years ago. We remember our tīpuna who secured Lake Ōkataina and the surrounding Ngāti Tarawhai lands as a scenic reserve in 1921. Let the record never erase from memory those who also passionately objected to the Te Arawa Lakes settlement negotiation of 1922.

Te Arawa have been here before. They stood strong at Hīrangi to denounce the fiscal envelope of those days. Our hearts go to all the kuia and koroua who in telling their stories unearthed a lifetime of sorrow, the heart-wrenching stories that were gifted to the record of time. They have worked painstakingly for their people, agonising over hours of hearings and volumes of words for the benefit of the tribe.

We know, with absolute certainty, that those who have travelled here today want to settle, as a mark of respect for so many of their people who have passed on without seeing this matter dealt with. Their member of Parliament, Te Ururoa Flavell, is today representing this Parliament at a gathering in Kenya. His heart aching for his people—for their stories and their mamae. His presence is also very much here today and he will look forward to contributing to this debate at subsequent readings.

He shared with us the decades of grief for the degradation and destruction of Te Arawa’s taonga. Minister Burton today acknowledged the savage depletion of the fish life upon which Te Arawa relied. He talked of the senseless acts of prosecution of Te Arawa for fishing in their own moana. He talked of the holding back of survey maps and plans that would have enabled Te Arawa to prepare for their claim. He talked of the devastation of their wetlands, reducing everything to one tap in the village. But will this pūtea pay for those things? That is why we are here today.

We know of Te Arawa’s love and longing for the lands, for the lakes, and for the lives of their tīpuna; and of the offence against Te Arawa’s tino rangatiratanga over the lakes and the usage of the resources of the lakes. In 1996 tangata whenua rejected unanimously the Crown’s offer of a $1 billion fiscal envelope to settle all claims as a full and final settlement of historic grievances. All the marae of the motu did that. But as successive Governments came and went, the policy remained in place.

The settlement process started with a bang, but not much buck to show for it—$170 million respectively for Tainui, for Ngāi Tahu, and for the Sealord’s fisheries. That $170 million became the standard for everybody else. It was a random figure with no rationale other than affordability. The House needs to recall that not one person has ever even suggested these settlements are anywhere near what a true and accurate response should have been. Indeed, Professor Margaret Mutu has suggested that the Tainui people had to accept .01 percent of the real value of their claim—$170 million—while the claim was estimated at $1,192 billion. For Ngāi Tahu, the figure was 0.4 percent of the real value.

More recently, redress amounts have been established, pitting iwi against iwi, hapū against hapū. Nowhere is this more apparent than amongst Te Arawa—and it is sad—where serious divisions have occurred between and amongst whānau, hapū, and iwi throughout the confederation. The process is a recipe for division—divide and rule and conquer. We have heard how some tribes are not mentioned in some of the three settlements, yet mentioned in others.

We are also aware of the urgent inquiry currently before Judge Wickliffe, on behalf of Ngāti Whaoa, specifically for three of the 13 lakes enshrined in this legislation and for the 14th lake, which has been omitted from this bill. How can Government go to settlement when there are still outstanding issues with regard to lakes in front of the tribunal?

Ngāti Whaoa have told us that they were never represented by the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board in the legislation of 1922 or 1955. By this process, the people of Te Arawa are being forced to face three different settlements with three different governance and management bodies with three different sets of costs. The fisheries settlement, the kaihautū agreement in principle, and the lakes settlement deed are the objects of today’s hui. With each new negotiation, the amount reduces, leaving a mere $2.7 million in cash for financial redress, and $7.3 million for annuity redress. Ko te pātai, is that all a glittering jewel in this nation’s wealth is worth? The bill itself acknowledges this: “It is not possible to compensate Te Arawa fully for that loss”. It is in the bill.

Te Arawa Lakes Trust is a group formed from Environment Bay of Plenty and the Rotorua District Council, with just two places reserved for mana whenua Te Arawa? Where is the rangatiratanga in that? Mana, or control, over the lakes is thereby again subject to the whims of Government constructs.

The matter of water has not even been mentioned or addressed. Nor is there sufficient recognition of the pollution and degradation of Te Arawa’s taonga. We understand that the estimated amount required to remedy the contamination inflicted on their moana by successive local authorities and Government regimes totals over $200 million. Where are the resources to clean up the lakes? Will the next Budget make the appropriation to restore the lakes to their positive condition? I think not. The last Budget never even had the word “Māori” in it.

It is for these reasons and more that the Māori Party will not vote on this Government bill. We will not vote against Te Arawa; we will not vote. There is not enough compensation. The process has divided Te Arawa, and it is all one-sided. We say to the people of Te Arawa that we respect their right to make decisions and respect the rangatiratanga of those who are gathered here today. We will not vote against them. But it is our sober task that we must never resile from a responsibility to bring to account the wrongful confiscation and theft of tangata whenua territories—the crimes against our people. We will not forget. We of the Māori Party appeal to members of this House—all of whom would want justice for themselves and theirs—to consider whether this settlement is a just settlement, and whether their ancestors and descendants would see justice being played out today.

With our first opportunity to speak on Treaty settlements in this House, we in the Māori Party do not see this or any previous settlements as indications of the application of justice. Because of the seriousness and the breadth of our people’s concerns made clear to us through our electorates, the Māori Party is considering a call for all Treaty settlements to be suspended until there has been a full review of the Treaty settlement process. Because of that we are writing to all hapū, iwi, and claimant groups to ask them to consider some of the concerns that have been sent to us by the people.

Nā reira Te Arawa, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i puku kaha te kōkiri i tō koutou tono ki te whānako, arā, ki te Karauna kia hoki tika mai te mana me ōna rawa ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou i hoe mai i ō koutou waka i runga i ngā roimata o te aroha mai i ngā wā kāinga tae noa ki te ana o te raiona. Ko tēnei tū, he tū kia werohia te Kāwanatanga kia whakatika ai i ngā kerēme katoa. Ko tā mātou e pōuri nei, ko tā mātou mōhio i te mutunga ake, kei a rātou te kōrero whakamutunga. Kei te kī, ko ēnei, ko ēnā rānei ngā taonga ka whakahokia, ā, me ngā rawa hoki ka whāngaihia atu ki a koutou. Na reira Te Arawa kei te tangi. Kei te tangi matou. Mātou nga tonotono a te iwi. Mātou ngā mema a te Pāti Māori. Mātou ngā uri o Te Arawa, o Kahungunu, o Ngāpuhi, o te Whanga-nui-a-Tara nei rā. Nō reira huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei raro Madam Assistant Speaker.

[And so greetings to you, Te Arawa. Greetings to you who worked strenuously to initiate your claim to the thief, the Crown, for the return of the authority and its properties to you directly. Greetings to you who paddled your canoes from your homes to the lions’ den here with tears of love. This stance of mine is to challenge the Government to rectify all claims. What saddens us greatly is that at the end of it all, they have the final say. We over here are saying: are those taonga really the ones that will be returned to you and the benefits that will be fed to you? And so, Te Arawa, we are grieving. We the representatives of the people, of the Māori Party, and as descendants of Te Arawa, Kahungunu, Ngāpuhi, and of Wellington here, are mourning. And so, greetings to you all throughout the House. I end here, Madam Assistant Speaker.]

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. Today, for Te Arawa, we start the final legislative journey of work that I believe began in 1987 when the claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal. Ten years later the lakes claim was separated out from other aspects of the claim, and 3 years later the terms of the negotiations were signed off. They were signed off again a couple of years later.

I would like to welcome those who have come from Te Arawa to witness the beginning of this legislative journey. I am from Whakatāne, and I am someone who has regularly enjoyed the Te Arawa lakes on family holidays, particularly Rotomā and Rotorua, and I have also enjoyed being part of outdoor education programmes with school children and youth groups on the shores of Ōkataina. I also understand the importance of some sacred sites that are scattered around the shores of Ōkataina. I recently enjoyed the opening of an Environment Bay of Plenty initiative at Lake Rerewhakaaitu, and I came to appreciate watching what had happened there and realised the importance of guardianship of these wonderful treasures.

I am taking only a brief call on this bill. United Future does not have a representative on the select committee that will be considering this bill. We will be relying heavily on the commentary from the committee to guide our ongoing support. We do support the Waitangi settlement process; however, we believe that resourcing could easily be stepped up to avoid hapū and iwi having to wait unreasonable lengths of time for settlements to be reached.

I think it is important—as I finish—that we remember those who have been part of this journey, but who have not lived long enough to see this day arrive. We must honour the work they have done, and we congratulate those who have continued to carry the baton on this important project. I thank those people for their attendance here today.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : Kia ora koutou, te whānau o Te Arawa. It is wonderful to have Te Arawa here today to share this occasion with us. As the member for Rotorua, I say that these are truly memorable moments in our historical journey together. As a contemporary Pākehā player in the unique environment of Rotorua, I am proud to follow on from the Hon Paul East, who showed an understanding of the Treaty settlement process. This process has moved smoothly, and I remember attending a meeting that started the process for me. Bishop Manu Bennett was there, helping us understand the historical account, with Anaru Rangiheuea, former Mayor Grahame Hall, Trevor Maxwell, Mita Ririnui, and Don Stafford telling our wonderful story and putting it right for the record.

Margaret Wilson was at that historic meeting, and that is where we began putting this settlement back on track. I would like to acknowledge Margaret Wilson for the work she did. I also acknowledge the leadership of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board. It has been very staunch through this process, patient, and long-suffering, and it has had to put up with some misunderstandings in our own community at home about what this settlement was trying to achieve. I congratulate the leadership of the Rotorua District Council—and Mayor Kevin Winters is with us today. He is also supported by Trevor Maxwell and Mauriora Kingi. It is just fantastic to see these people coming with our waka down here to our Whare today.

The Pākehā in the Rotorua community only ever sought access to the waters of iconic lakes, and if they were confident of the leadership of Rotorua to make sure that that access was enshrined, they went away and let the negotiators get on with the process. That mandated leadership of the Rotorua District Council working with the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board gave our people confidence that this process was moving along, and that was what was required. I thank Mark Burton for picking this bill up now, and I thank this Government for reprioritising the Treaty settlement process, because this settlement certainly needed to get on track as a high priority. I say, “Well done!”, to my colleague Mita Ririnui for holding the negotiation process together, holding a candle under the process, and keeping it going in the right direction.

One of the things I enjoyed seeing was our kaumātua of Te Arawa working with our younger negotiators—and David Tapsell is up in the gallery today. He is only one of the negotiators, but his father, Sir Peter Tapsell, would be proud of him to know that he is helping us with his skills to work on this negotiated settlement. We know our lakes are iconic. In the words of Bishop Manu Bennett—and Auntie Kaa is up in the gallery today—he would never bless objects without the people present understanding their responsibility with regard to them, and we are all here today. We are two people, walking one pathway, tātou, tātou.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I begin my speech this afternoon by acknowledging the great and noble confederation of iwi and hapū of Te Arawa and to welcome their representatives to our House. I also acknowledge the presence of their advisers, including my good friends and former colleagues Paul Radich and Jessica Hodgson, who are now lawyers in Izard Weston. They spent many hours in the period leading up to the deed of settlement being signed working with David Tapsell and others in Te Arawa to ensure that the deed of settlement could be signed on 18 December 2004. I also acknowledge my old friend David Tapsell, with whom I worked in two law firms, most recently at Bell Gully, and I acknowledge his father, Peter Tapsell, who, as we all know, was a great member of this House and a very wise and just Speaker.

Settlements between the Crown and iwi can be great occasions in the life of our country. I said in my maiden speech that, for me, 21 November 1997 was the proudest moment of my legal career when, as one of the team who had worked for Ngāi Tahu for many years against the Crown, I went to Kaikōura and witnessed Sir Tīpene O’Regan and the former Prime Minister Jim Bolger sign the deed of settlement. Because of the excellent work done by Georgina te Heuheu and others in this House in 1998, the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act was passed towards the end of that year. So Treaty settlements can be a great occasion, as I have said, in the life of the country. To quote the words of Isaiah, they can undo many of the heavy burdens of the past and enable our peoples to look to the future with confidence and optimism.

So, as a legislator, it is with a very heavy heart that I am required to stand in this House today and express my grave concerns about this legislation, because, quite frankly, I think Te Arawa have been let down. I particularly want to focus on clauses 7 and 9 of the bill to illustrate just what I am talking about.

The first point is that I do not believe that acknowledgments and apologies should be contained in legislation. One of the reasons for that is illustrated by a member’s bill under the name of one of the New Zealand First members—and I think it is Mr Peters himself—which seeks to delete all references to the Treaty, and references to the principles of the Treaty, from legislation. So if that bill was passed, we should think of what that would do to clauses 7 and 9 of this legislation. The best way of dealing with apologies is to have them contained in deeds as separate documents, but not to incorporate them in legislation.

The second point—and it is a fundamental point, and time and time again it has been said to members of this House, and I will say it again—is that this legislation contains, in clauses 7 and 9, vague and formulaic references to the Treaty, which, as I said, I believe are insulting and have the same tone of sincerity as MPs withdrawing and apologising in this House. Let me refer to subclause (2) of clause 7. There the Crown acknowledges various things, and says that it was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. But what principles? Subclause (4) of clause 7 acknowledges—

Hon Mita Ririnui: Protection.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —I will come to that—that it failed to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa as part of its 1992 agreement as a result of inflation, and was a breach of the Treaty and its principles. If it is active protection we are talking about, why is that not explicitly stated in the bill? Then there is clause 9, which states: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to Te Arawa for the breaches of te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and its principles acknowledged above.” What does that mean? Select committees cannot amend apologies; apologies come from the Crown. This bill should be withdrawn by the Government and tidied up because these are fundamental errors. If one is going to refer to principles of the Treaty, one should state exactly which principles one is referring to.

In general terms there are about nine key or central principles that have been extracted over the years from various cases and reports of the Waitangi Tribunal. The first is that the Crown has an obligation to actively protect Māori interests. One of the Labour members interjected and said: “Oh that’s what this is about.” Well, the legislation should say so. The second one is that Crown and Māori have mutual obligations to act reasonably and in good faith. The third one is that the Treaty has to be adapted to modern, rapidly changing circumstances. The fourth one is that there is a principle of mutual benefit that should be applied. The fifth is that the Treaty has a basic object of two peoples living together in one country, and this concept lays the foundation for the principle of partnership. The sixth is that the Crown has guaranteed rangatiratanga to all iwi, and that includes the implicit guarantee that the Crown would not allow one iwi an unfair advantage over another. The seventh is that the Crown has an obligation to recognise rangatiratanga.

There is an eighth principle, and it has not been picked up in many of the commentaries over the years, but it arises out of a case concerning the Ngāi Tahu Māori Trust Board and the Department of Conservation—a case I was involved in for Whale Watch Kaikōura. We succeeded in persuading the Crown that section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 meant that Ngāi Tahu should have a reasonable degree of preference when it came to the operation of Whale Watch Kaikōura vis-à-vis others who might seek to enter that particular operation off Kaikoura.

So it is not too hard to spell out what exactly one is talking about when one refers to the principles of the Treaty. This is yet another example of lazy drafting and poor workmanship by this Government. And it is worse than that, as I said, because of the sloppiness of it, and because of the inadequacy of it—it has all the hallmarks of insincerity, which only the Crown is capable of showing.

My next point refers to what the Law Commission said in its publication Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law. It referred to a submission that the Law Commission had made to the Health Committee on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill 2000, which urged Parliament, as far as possible, to provide the courts with guidance as to its precise intention when referring to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. Of course, there the Law Commission was referring to clauses such as section 4 of the Conservation Act or section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. But I think the same point needs to be made if the Crown is going to include Treaty of Waitangi references in legislation.

I really do believe these are quite fundamental points I have endeavoured to raise in relation to acknowledgments and apologies contained in this legislation. I do not believe they are capable of being cured by a select committee; the select committee cannot tinker with apologies. The proper thing for the Crown to do is to withdraw this legislation and do a better job, because I think the people of Te Arawa deserve better than this very B grade effort. I also think these concerns I have raised echo what my friend Dr Pita Sharples has said—that given all these problems with the Treaty settlement process it certainly would not hurt to take stock and see where we are going, because this is a poor effort and these good people have travelled a long way for not very much at all.

SHANE JONES (Labour) : I will be speaking in Māori, and I will do my own translation. Ki a te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. E ōku kaumātua, koutou kua puta mai nei mai i ērā hārotoroto o tātou i roto i te rohe o Waiariki, tēnei ahau te whakamihi atu ki a koutou nau mai, piki mai, kake mai, haere mai.

[To the House, greetings to us all. To my elders, those of you who have appeared here from those lakes of ours in the Waiariki region, I extend greetings to you, welcome, welcome aboard, welcome.]

I welcome the elders and leaders of the Arawa confederation who have come to Parliament today. Ahau e tū ana ki te tautoko i ngā mahi kua horahia, i ngā kupu kua whakaarongia i roto i te pire, ka whakatakotongia i tēnei rā. Mehemea e kite ana ētahi wāhanga kāhore e rite tonu ana ki ō koutou whakaaro, he aha oti te raruraru kia whārikitia ki konei, tahi ka haria ki te Komiti Uiui hei konā koutou whakapuaki i ō koutou whakaaro.

[I stand to support what has been stated and outlined in the bill presented today. If there are parts that differ from one’s point of view, no harm is done by expressing them here and having them referred to the committee for further debate.]

I stand to support the first reading of this bill. I note that it will be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, where there will be an opportunity for people to make further submissions and, indeed, refinements.

Ka nui taku pōuri ki te rongo atu i ngā kōrero e horahia ana i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei rā. Ahau nei, mehemea ko te kaupapa nei kua oti i a koutou, ngā kaikōrero, i whakaritea hei kawe i nga reo o Te Arawa, i waenga tonu i a koutou me ngā māngai o te Karauna, me waiho ko te whakamutunga, me te hanganga o tēnei kaupapa i waenga tonu i a kourua, nāhea anō. Ko te Karauna me ngā kaikōrero o roto i Te Arawa. Me kaua tētahi atu te poka noa ki te whakawehewehe i ngā kōrero waenga tonu i a kourua.

I also note that others are unwilling to support the progress of this bill. I think that is a shame. It overlooks the fact that there has been a set of discussions—a negotiation between nominated speakers of the Arawa people and representatives of the Crown. It is not fitting that any member of this House should seek to disturb, undermine, or fracture that which belongs between those two Treaty partners.

Ahau e whakamihi ana hoki ki a koutou. Ko te tāmoko o Te Arawa ka whakapumautia ki te takere o ngā hārotoroto e kōrerongia ake nei. Ko wai ka hua, ko wai ka tohu a e ngā rā e takoto tata ake nei. E hia ranei te pūtea, pēhea ana rānei te whakahaere o ngā taonga nei. Otirā, ko te taonga motuhake kua taka ki roto i te kapu o ō koutou ringaringa, hei whiriwhiri, hei whakahaere i ērā kōrero. Kaua rawa ko mātou ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata ēngari, me whakawhiwhi atu ki a koutou ngā uri o ō tātou tūpuna nō rātou ērā taonga i te tuatahi.

[I congratulate you once again. The insignia of the Arawa people will be indelibly laid upon the beds of the lakes mentioned. Who will benefit, or where will it lead to in future? What will the revenue be, how will these treasures be administered, especially the one that has come into your hands? Who will determine and run those discussions? Those determinations are for you the descendants of our ancestors who owned the treasures in the first place. It is not for us members of Parliament House.]

Although it may be said and complained that a better line of revenue could have been associated with the transfer of the lakes, the moko of the Arawa people will be indelibly laid upon the beds of the lakes. Te Arawa will have the opportunity to ensure that their vision and aspirations regarding the development and usage of the lakes rest firmly with them, and not with a single member of this Parliament.

Koia tāku e te Arawa e tautoko ana, me te mōhio ko te katoa o ngā tūmanako e kore rawa e ea. Otirā, ko koutou, ko ahau, ko wai atu rānei kei tēnā rēanga mā rātou e kapo i te mea taea e rātou. Ko wai rānei kua hua, ko wai ranei ka tohu, hei roto i te wā o ō tātou mokopuna, te roanga atu o ngā kōrero.

[Therefore Te Arawa, I support this bill, knowing that all that you had hoped for will not be fulfilled. Indeed it is for you, for me, for whoever else, or for that generation to seize upon what is possible for them. Who will benefit, or where it will lead to in the future, is in the hands of our grandchildren.]

Therefore, I stand and support this bill. Who can tell how matters will finally end up in the days of our mokopuna and our uri? Each generation must make a decision and seize upon that which it believes is the best that can be achieved at a given point in time. Tautoko ana au i te pire. Kia ora tātou katoa.

[I support the bill. Greetings to us all.]

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I move, That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee and that the Committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and 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), and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 August 2006.

• Motion agreed to.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee. I also intend to instruct that the committee presents its report to the House on or before 31 July 2006.

This bill has been prepared as part of the work undertaken by this Government on developing the New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Action Plan. The principal purpose of the bill is to ensure that adequate statutory powers are available to the Crown to properly respond to and manage a major public health emergency, such as the threat or actual outbreak of a highly infectious disease, whether occurring in New Zealand or overseas. The primary amendments in the bill are to the Health Act. The amendments clarify, modernise, and, where necessary, close gaps in the law relating to public health emergencies and quarantine powers. The current provisions are old and were made in the days when ship travel was the most common way in which people arrived in New Zealand. The amendments will ensure that the Act is more responsive to current epidemic and pandemic influenza scenarios.

In particular, the bill adds pandemic influenza to the list of quarantinable diseases contained in the Health Act. This will ensure that quarantine powers can be exercised in relation to pandemic influenza as well as the existing quarantinable diseases of typhoid, yellow fever, and plague. The bill provides an Order in Council mechanism to quickly add new highly infectious diseases to the list, should they emerge.

The bill modernises the quarantine provisions for aircraft arrivals, as current provisions focus more on ship arrivals. It modernises the language used in the emergency power provisions in the Health Act from the time when, for example, billiard halls and reading rooms were common places where the public would gather. It relaxes emergency provisions to close public places, so they may remain open if certain protective and preventive measures are put in place. That could mean, for example, that essential services such as supermarkets can remain open, hence preventing pandemonium. The bill provides for the examination and testing of people arriving in New Zealand who are liable to quarantine as part of triaging based on risk. It updates medical surveillance provisions for people who may be at risk of having or spreading a quarantinable disease, and provides for surveillance at large.

The bill updates emergency requisition powers, such as widening the use of premises to accommodate sick people if hospitals are overflowing. Further it provides for the development and implementation of a policy to prioritise scarce medical supplies, such as antivirals and any future vaccines, in an emergency and to protect health workers and others following the policy. It gives the New Zealand Police enforcement powers to assist statutory medical officers of health in the exercise of their emergency powers, in the unlikely event of resistance. Further it enables statutory medical officers of health to redirect aircraft that have landed in New Zealand to another place in New Zealand if that is considered necessary in order to deal with a disease scenario more effectively. It adds a provision to relax certain statutory requirements and restrictions on enactments administered by the Ministry of Health, if authorised by an epidemic notice issued by the Prime Minister. For example, it will provide the ability to allow competent people to administer vaccinations who may not currently work in a scope of practice that allows them to do that.

The bill also amends a number of other enactments dealing with matters that may be disrupted by, or may need to deal specifically with, the consequences of an epidemic. These amendments can be triggered only if an epidemic notice is in force. They include the following: allowing nurses to sign death certificates in certain circumstances if doctors are in short supply; allowing employers to reduce the notice period when requiring employees to take annual leave; allowing overseas people to stay longer in New Zealand if they cannot return to their own countries; provisions to manage parole, community service, home detention, and remand issues; the ability to provide reasonable and necessary relief from compliance with statutory duties where impossible or impracticable to comply; and some minor administrative amendments relating to student loans, tax, and social security emergency payments.

Some of the provisions in the bill do require a lesser priority on individual rights than is appropriate in times of non-emergency. That is justified by the need to ensure that members of the community in general are protected from those who may be suffering from a highly infectious disease but who may not necessarily comply voluntarily with normal disease control mechanisms. I am sure everyone in Parliament agrees that New Zealanders should, where reasonably possible, be protected from unnecessary infection by a lethal pandemic disease and that we must collectively ensure this protection. The Government would wish to see the bill enacted by August 2006, and I commend it to the House.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : The National Party in Opposition will support the progress of the bill to the Government Administration Committee. I wonder whether the Minister Clayton Cosgrove indicated a time frame for consideration.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yes.

Hon TONY RYALL: We are also prepared to support that, on the understanding that if extra time is needed, then the Minister and the Business Committee will facilitate that.

Protecting human health is at the crux of New Zealand’s pandemic preparedness. If we fail to protect our people’s health, we are also likely to fail in our secondary goals of maintaining social cohesion and seeking to mitigate the economic and social consequences of the pandemic. When pandemic strains emerge, they sweep through communities and nations with frightening velocity. The three pandemics we saw in the past century circled the globe, and in many communities they had spread through the human population within months.

The concentrated mortality of a pandemic can be shocking. The 1918 pandemic, for example, killed more people in 6 months than who died in the last 25 years from AIDS, and more than were killed in World War I. So the effects of a pandemic are indeed very serious for our country. The primary strategy of the Government and of Parliament has to be to protect human health by seeking to prevent the emergence of any strain of pandemic, and, if possible, to contain any human outbreak at its source, if that emergence does occur.

The National Party has taken a particular interest in pandemic planning in New Zealand since it identified that the Government had prepared a priority list for Tamiflu that the Minister of Health knew nothing about—other than the fact that he was on it. I think we have demonstrated in the last few months the perfect role of a vigorous and informed Opposition party. It has been National’s raising various issues in pandemic planning that has basically forced the Government’s hand, and actually got it to a position where the Minister of Health said on television that he lies awake at night worried about the pandemic. I suspect that it might be Tony Ryall’s questions that keep him awake at night. The Opposition has raised the issues in pandemic planning, and we have highlighted the inefficiencies and ineffectualness of the Government’s early responses, and the Government has responded to the agenda we have set. But, today, I also want to identify to the Government the new areas that its work must now move on to.

In the last 24 hours President Bush unveiled a $7.1 billion plan to prepare for a flu pandemic in the United States. It involves improving vaccines, stockpiling antiviral drugs, and changing and enforcing rules involving the United States. That is an investment that New Zealand should welcome. The President is investing $2.8 billion in what he calls a “crash program” to accelerate the development of new technology to speed up vaccine makers’ ability to produce enough vaccine to protect people in that country. The benefit of that investment will be felt here in New Zealand.

Darren Hughes: Vote for President Bush!

Hon TONY RYALL: We might have to get Judith Collins to come and deal with that member.

It is vital to recognise that protecting human health during a pandemic will require a number of things. It will require strong domestic and international surveillance, good identification testing, the rapid development and production of health interventions, targeted use of antivirals, community infection control measures, effective understanding of risk reduction strategies, and the full involvement of the public and private sectors.

The United States’ pandemic plan, which was released in the last 24 hours, addressed the most gaping hole in this Government’s pandemic preparedness. From the very beginning I have asked the Government what the plan is to get medical treatment to people who are sick in their homes. The Health Committee asked the Government the same question, because that is where most people will be during a pandemic. Most people will be at home. President Bush’s pandemic plan—the American strategy—basically addressed that issue. We have not done so in New Zealand.

The Americans are saying: “Given that most persons with pandemic influenza will experience typical influenza symptoms, most persons who seek care can be managed appropriately by [non-hospital] providers using a home-based approach. Appropriate management of … pandemic influenza cases may reduce the risk of progression to severe disease and thereby reduce demand for inpatient care. A system of effective home-based care would decrease the burden on health care providers and hospitals and lessen exposure of unaffected persons to persons with influenza. Telephone call centers should be established or augmented within affected communities to provide advice on whether to stay home or to seek care.” This is the important bit: “Home health care providers and organizations can provide follow-up for those who are managed at home, decreasing potential exposure of the public to persons who are ill and may transmit infection.” So clear thinking is going on in other countries about how to deal with a problem that this Government has not yet dealt with.

There are a number of areas that the Government still has to deal with. Many of those areas are the consequences that ordinary people will be confronted with. What happens if someone defaults on his or her contractual obligations because he or she is sick with bird flu? What happens if someone cannot go to work or earn income because that person has bird flu, and cannot meet his or her mortgage payments? The Government has not talked about how to deal with those consequences. What happens if people cannot meet their legal payment requirements because their bank is closed due to the pandemic? What will happen then? There has been no thinking on that at all here. The Government has provided some changes in this legislation to make it easier to provide special-needs grants to people who are affected by a pandemic, but how will we get money to volunteers who might need to go and buy food for people who are sick at home? None of that is covered in this legislation.

But what is covered in this legislation—and we should spend some time talking about it—is the fact that one of the biggest risks to the community will be in the area of law and order. There is potential for considerable disorder in a number of situations. For example, hospital facilities may be overwhelmed by those seeking care and treatment for their family members, and people may vie for limited doses of vaccines and antivirals. There may be difficulties due to disruption of the provision of basic necessities like food, and to individuals attempting to leave areas where outbreaks have occurred. I suspect that during a pandemic the biggest crisis the Government will face will be one of public disorder, because if people start fighting to get into hospitals, to get limited food left in supermarkets, or to get out of quarantine zones, then we will very quickly be on a road to anarchy and disorder in our communities. That is why it is so important that communities engage in pandemic planning, so that people are aware of what their responsibilities will be to themselves, their families, and others. That is one of the very real points that the National Party has been making from day one in its efforts to get the Government to focus on the important issues involved in pandemic planning.

I want the Government to know that we will be asking questions in the select committee about what it is doing about, particularly, the economic consequences to families. After the Hawke’s Bay earthquake, far-reaching regulations were passed to allow authorities to deal with all the economic issues. Regulations have been used—they were used in that situation—and they allowed authorities and agents of the State to deal with the breakdown of contractual arrangements. The Government should be dealing with that. I have raised this issue with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health; they came back and said they would have to talk to the banks. That work should have been going on months ago, because contractual arrangements and the breakdown of people’s income will be fundamental. That is the biggest gap in this legislation.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I rise to support the introduction of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. It is about leadership, and it is about preparedness. If the law were the only vehicle available, then some of the previous speaker’s comments might be valid. But it is not the only vehicle available to prepare for a pandemic in this country. Other means and other plans are well advanced, and this legislation is but one part of that planning. It is a necessary part, but it is not the only thing that is available. So if the previous speaker has further suggestions to make about what appear to be gaps in the planning for a pandemic, then I suggest he looks beyond simply this one mechanism and contributes constructively to the whole planning process.

In the event of a bird flu or of any other pandemic or epidemic we need to be careful, we need to be responsible, and we need to be modern about our responses. This bill is all of those things; it is careful, responsible, and modern. It is about being ready to deal with some of the most serious social and economic challenges this country would have faced in over a generation, as the Minister of Health has said today. It provides not only for a flu epidemic but for future epidemics of any kind, by amending the 50-year-old Health Act and updating other legislation, such as the Parole Act and the Immigration Act. It also introduces some new powers that are only appropriate given the changes in society since the 1956 Health Act. I refer particularly to the provisions, around measures such as welfare payments and automatic visa extensions to any visitors or tourists who may be trapped in New Zealand, that provide for the restriction of face-to-face contact.

The key point in this legislation is the protection of the people of New Zealand. We need to balance an infected person’s right to freedom with the rights of an uninfected person to be protected and not to become infected. The powers given to the police in this bill may appear unusual, but it is important to remember two things. One is that the circumstances will be extreme, and the second is that the additional powers are time limited. The police will have the power to detain people for medical tests and for treatment. They will have powers to assist medical officers of health and health protection officers in the carrying out of their duties, and in the protection of the public and the restriction of any further spread of infection. But it is important to note that the notice of epidemic expires on the day 3 months after its commencement. It can be renewed, but it has a time-limited application. That should give some comfort to those who may consider that they have concerns about the increased powers.

The Government has said it invites submissions on the bill. It is open to all constructive suggestions about how the bill can be improved and how additional security and preparedness can be advanced. We welcome any constructive suggestions in that regard. This legislation is about balance. It is about responsible government, and it is about being prepared for something that we hope may never happen, but that statistically the chances of it occurring are high. It is also a chance for all parties in this House to participate in the protection and care of New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : In the course of this debate we have been privileged to hear from the Hon Tony Ryall in a hard-hitting, careful, and well-constructed speech on behalf of the National Party. He indicated in his comments just some of the issues that will arise as the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill is considered by the Government Administration Committee. There are a number of significant issues. I would like to start from a quite different basis and talk about the experience for New Zealanders, in very practical terms, in 1918 when we were hit by a pandemic flu epidemic. Pestilence has not been one of New Zealand’s besetting problems. Even in the earliest days of settlement, when preventive and medical services were very limited, the salubrious climate, and also the austere living conditions, were guarantees of a reasonable standard of physical health.

There were, of course, outbreaks between 1910 and 1920. The incidence of smallpox warranted preventive measures on a national scale. Similar widespread immunisation and precautionary methods were found necessary in respect of diphtheria. Infantile paralysis—or as it later came to be called, poliomyelitis—was also responsible for varying death rolls. From the 1920s onwards, it developed on occasion to the point where restrictions on school attendance and public assembly were necessary. However, the overall death roll was not high by epidemic standards.

All of that changed in 1918 when two waves of influenza spread across the country, the first being followed by a virile wave that swept through the country from October through to December in that year. Everyone was personally affected in one way or another, and special restrictive measures were imposed as the death rate rose sharply. People became depressed. It was not just a matter of months but, rather, years before the adverse effects of the epidemic were overcome.

Many people, in a way that might be appropriate for Mr Hughes on occasions, were treated for the flu by being wrapped in cotton wadding and flannel. At the time, there was a lot of discussion and disagreement about the correct way to treat influenza patients. Families were left isolated in their houses for days, only collecting bread and milk after it had been delivered, and people became too afraid to visit others, for fear of catching the disease.

The disease was in fact carried from the sick soldiers and crew returning home from World War I on the steamship Niagara, which arrived in Auckland on 12 October. By the middle of November, the influenza epidemic in Auckland had peaked, with Auckland having approximately 2,000 deaths alone. So it started in Auckland and it then spread rapidly south, causing an alarming death rate of 1,860 people throughout the country in only 8 weeks. By the 13th week it had begun to decline. The total number of deaths from the disease or its complications was believed to be more than 6,500 people.

There were particular challenges in Auckland. On 31 October the Mayor of Auckland, Sir James Gunson, held a special meeting in the council chambers to form a committee to take appropriate action to help sufferers, and also to cope with the epidemic. [Interruption] I can tell Mr Hughes that the city was divided into 22 blocks, with each doctor being allocated a special area, and six temporary hospitals were set up in schools and halls. Houses, hotels, and boarding houses assumed the aspect of hospitals as so many of the guests and members of staff were affected.

I speak of these things because if a pandemic does come, these are the sorts of situations that our citizens and our residents will have to confront and deal with. There were particular problems in dealing with the dead, and that is an issue that I will come to in a moment when I look at specific provisions in the bill before us. But in the result, with a huge pile up of corpses in the Auckland Domain, an order was made requiring all bodies of persons who had died from influenza or its complications to be buried, and special trains were provided from that place of death to the Waikumete Cemetery for burial.

It is all very well, and it is appropriate, that we support this bill going to a select committee, but we need to realise that all it does is construct the statutory frameworks for dealing with a limited number of situations, and there have to be sitting behind this statutory work the physical measures that need to be taken to engage in pandemic planning and the implementation of remedial work.

So what does this legislation do? Well, it makes pandemic influenza a quarantinable disease. It enables quarantine powers at the border, it clarifies the emergency powers available to medical officers of health, it provides powers for the New Zealand police to assist medical officers of health, and it supports action to prevent or manage a health emergency. I am not myself convinced that this epidemic notice technique will actually be very satisfactory, but that, as the bill describes, is a “trigger provision”, and it enables the Prime Minister to issue a Gazette notice declaring that she—it will be “he” by then—is satisfied that the effects of the outbreak of an infectious disease are likely to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand. The Gazette notice then triggers a range of possible actions. However, just on the face of it, they seem to me to be quite limited.

The Resource Management Act will be amended so that resource consent is not necessary to establish community treatment centres, mass graves, and so on for 24 months if there is an epidemic. Other Acts will be amended to provide for temporary relief from use-of-money interest and penalties for taxpayers, and the relaxation of immigration provisions, parole provisions, probation conditions, and then the relaxation of benefit provisions and the providing of emergency benefits for people who would not usually be entitled.

A further plan is to amend the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act so that doctors and appropriately qualified nurses can issue death certificates without having necessarily attended the person before death. [Interruption] The clapping by Darren Hughes on the other side of the Chamber reminds me of the strength of the proposition I initially advanced that there are in this community, as there were in 1918, a number of people who might well be treated by being wrapped in cotton wadding and flannel. It seems to me that Mr Hughes would certainly lend himself to such a treatment.

As we look around the world we see in what is going on in countries like Viet Nam the high probability that this pandemic might break out in a country like that, despite the very best efforts by authorities in particular countries. For example, in Viet Nam in the Ninh Binh province a mass vaccination programme has been initiated by the Viet Namese Government. It has been a huge project staffed by 80,000 workers, and I understand that by January 2006 more than 240 million poultry had been inoculated against bird flu.

It seems, for the present, that that has worked, because in January the agricultural ministry in Viet Nam declared that the country had contained bird flu, with no more outbreaks reported in the previous 3 weeks in the 21 cities previously affected. I instance Viet Nam, because the risk of bird flu transferring to humans will continue there for many years. The country has a bird population of 84 million, and those birds, in small flocks, are located in backyards, with people living in close proximity. It is the perfect incubator for the H5N1 virus to mutate into one easily transmissible between humans.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill going to the Government Administration Committee. There is no doubt that in the event of an epidemic—whether it be bird flu, some other fatal influenza, or another disease we heard about from the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth—the population at large will be looking to the Government for a speedy response and leadership for the country. They will also look for some guidance and assurance that a crisis of that kind will be managed as best as it is possible to be managed. We must commend the Government for its actions in updating this legislation in a timely manner—better before the event than after the event. This bill is all about managing a crisis, from imposing quarantine powers at borders to clarifying the emergency powers available to the medical officers of health and the police, and managing a whole range of other matters that may be disruptive, or may be needed to deal with the specific consequences of an epidemic.

It is not that a bird flu pandemic could not become a reality; a mutation in the virus could lead to a human epidemic. Statistics suggest that if that mutation were to continue with a high fatality rate—apparently 30 to 50 percent among people known to have contracted the infection—then the results would be disastrous, and we would need the legislation as outlined by Dr Richard Worth. Fortunately, at this stage, the chances of that occurring seem to be low. However, medical researchers say that an epidemic is always on the cards, as are major volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, or earthquakes. An influenza epidemic occurred in 1918, and there will almost certainly be another one in the future. Wise people always learn from the lessons of the past.

New Zealand First notes that this legislation responds to the World Health Organization advice, and it ensures there is clarity, certainty, and legislative authority so that the public health response is appropriate. That is absolutely what is required. The last thing the public wants or needs is a weak or disorganised response by the Government or the health authorities in such a crisis. It is essential to be prepared, and we know that any crisis of the magnitude outlined by the previous speaker would be absolutely disastrous.

The Health Act of 1956 did have some gaps that do affect the Government’s ability to respond to an epidemic, and it is very timely to review and update that legislation. A number of Acts will be affected by this legislation. I read from the bill that the Holidays Act of 2003, the Income Tax Act of 2004, the Parole Act of 2002, and the Sentencing Act of 2002 will be affected—it is quite an extensive list; I have mentioned only a few. Some of the legal obligations talked about by the Hon Tony Ryall are covered in this bill and, as Maryan Street said, improvements and constructive suggestions are definitely welcome.

Just last year the Health Committee had a briefing from the Ministry of Health on version 14 of the New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Action Plan, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the Ministry of Health has further refined that plan. The version number, I am sure, would be much higher now than 14. I believe that the Ministry of Health can be commended for the preparations it currently has under way. We always know that preparations can be improved, as the US has identified, and the Ministry of Health will no doubt be looking at the American plan with great interest.

New Zealand First is pleased to see all the information and the material that are now available advising the public about the necessity for family preparedness. Although many families are able to stockpile some food and other goods in the event of a pandemic, we must be very aware too that some families on fixed incomes will find this challenging, and this aspect must be prepared for and covered in legislation. We do not want to have families unnecessarily starving.

New Zealand First supports this legislation. Preparation is absolutely essential if we are to ensure that a pandemic is managed as well as it possibly can be. A pandemic threat such as bird flu, or any disease, is basically too important for petty party politics and needs leadership and measures such as are proposed and outlined in this legislation. We support this legislation going to a select committee.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : The Green Party will be supporting this legislation going to a select committee but we do have some serious concerns that I will raise here and that I will seek to address at the select committee. Frankly, the predictions about what might happen in New Zealand if there is a pandemic are almost Kafkaesque. We have had predictions of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders becoming ill and not being able to bury the dead and so on. We do agree with Tony Ryall in this regard—the key issue will be for people to manage in their own homes, so we need to have medical care that can reach people in their homes. We think that this is—along with the lack of surveillance—a key hole in the pandemic preparedness plan.

We are pleased that we have also had a role in prodding the Government into taking greater action on this issue. At the beginning of last year the Government did not have any supplies of personal protective equipment or anything else available. Now, partly through its own initiatives and partly because of the prodding and questions of members in this House, I believe that the Government has a much greater level of preparedness, but there are still some significant gaps. Although there has been much talk about improving our surveillance, I see no evidence whatsoever of improved surveillance, so that is the greatest gap. Secondly, how will we treat people in their own homes? This fundamental question has not been answered.

But I will focus today on the issues of police powers. We certainly acknowledge that we need police powers in an emergency to be able to enforce quarantines and suchlike. We have no problem with this and we recognise that it is essential. The problem is that the police powers in this bill are completely unrestricted; we can see no restrictions on them whatsoever. What this could mean is that, for example, people could be forced to be vaccinated against their will. I think people should have an option there. They could choose to stay home rather than to be vaccinated.

Secondly, under the powers of this bill, health professionals could be forced to go to work even if they should be protected under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. This Act states that if health professionals feel that their safety and health are at risk, they do not have to turn up to work. This bill appears to override those provisions and it seems to me that nurses, doctors, and ambulance officers etc. could be forced to work under the provisions of this legislation by force—by police—even if they feel that their health is at risk and even if they feel that they are not properly protected. This appears to us to override all of the provisions in the Health and Safety in Employment Act. We think this is a real concern and that health professionals ought to be made aware of the unrestrained and unrestricted nature of these powers.

We will be seeking to amend those police powers—which we agree are necessary—to make them focused on the implementation of quarantine, such as quarantining aircraft and communities, in order to protect against specific risks. We have no problem with those police powers at all. The problem is that this completely erodes civil liberties to the point where we would have no democracy but would have a totalitarian State.

We think that what has happened is that the officials, in drafting this legislation, thought about every eventuality and every situation where they might need some powers, but the consequences are that they have ended up with completely unrestricted powers, which actually offer no protection or civil liberties to individuals or indeed to health professionals. I have spoken to many health professionals, and all of them said that because of their duties they of course would wish to go to work, but that they would have concerns if they were expected to go to work unprotected, be exposed to a virus, then take that virus home and expose their families. That could cause their families to suffer from a disease. We do not know how serious bird flu might be, but it could put their lives at risk. That is why we have the provisions of the Health and Safety in Employment Act, and we are concerned that those provisions are overridden in this bill.

Many people have referred to the 1918 influenza epidemic, but in a way we are probably far less equipped or prepared in 2006 than we were in 1918. In 1918 people knew their neighbours, they had communities—communities were not decimated as so many of our communities are today—and most people grew their own food. And they knew how to survive on their own. We have a tradition in our history—both Pākehā and Māori—of people actually surviving in conditions where they are on their own. But, today most of us could not survive for much more than about 24 hours, and I think most people would indeed panic and be completely ill-equipped to cope if there was a pandemic.

What we need to do is to focus on encouraging people to be more self-sufficient and to be able to cope on their own, and for New Zealand as a whole, as a nation, to be more self-sufficient. We learnt that during the SARS epidemic when the Government tried to order supplies of personal protective equipment and discovered that it could not get any because there was an international panic. So the SARS epidemic progressed, and, had it come to New Zealand, we would not even have had personal protective equipment. We were completely reliant on imports for that; we simply did not have stockpiles.

So the Green Party members think that we need to be much better prepared as a nation and more self-reliant in respect of medicines, equipment, and indeed of basic fundamentals like food as well as drugs. We still have huge holes in that regard. We are glad the Government has begun to develop some sort of provisions—for example, contingency supplies of antibiotics. We have a very limited supply of Tamiflu. It is not nearly enough even to protect our health workforce, and, from answers to written questions, we do not think we have nearly enough personal protective equipment to equip our health workforce. That being the case, it is all the more essential that if our health workforce are not able to be properly protected in the event of an epidemic, in terms of personal protective equipment, Tamiflu and so forth, then they should have the option—as they are given presently under the Health and Safety in Employment Act—of not turning up for work. Unfortunately, under this bill, all of those provisions are overridden, and the police powers are completely and totally unrestricted. We will certainly seek to specify those police powers.

• Debate interrupted.