Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I seek leave for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill to be extended to 30 October 2003.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : I move, That the Māori Television Service Bill be now read a second time. The idea of a Māori television service has been around for some time. A Māori television service was given impetus as a result of the 1993 Privy Council decision in the broadcasting assets case. The Privy Council noted, amongst other things, that the Government had made a commitment, by Cabinet agreement in 1991, to set aside funding for the purpose of promoting Māori language and culture in broadcasting, part or all of which could be used to assist in the development of special-purpose television. This bill establishes the Māori Television Service. The bill also confirms the Māori Television Electoral College, known as Te Pūtahi Paoho. The bill confirms the partnership approach that the Government and Māori have negotiated in relation to the governance, accountability and general operation of the Māori Television Service.

The principal function of the Māori Television Service is to promote Māori language and culture through the provision of a high-quality, cost-effective Māori television service, in both Māori and English, that informs, educates, and entertains, and in doing so enriches New Zealand society, culture, and heritage. The channel will assist in highlighting and promoting Māori success, and will encourage the further achievement of Māori in education, and in areas of social and economic development. The new channel will screen te reo Māori and Māori programmes in prime time. For the first time, we will start to see Māori-orientated programmes at times when Māori and New Zealand audiences usually watch television.

The Māori Television Service is a statutory corporation. It involves Māori and the Crown in the governance and accountability of the service. Similar accountability provisions to those in the Public Finance Act will apply. Those include the requirement for a statement of intent, for an output agreement at the beginning of the financial year, and for an annual report at the end of each financial year. The service will have a seven-member board, with four directors appointed by the Māori Television Electoral College, and three by the responsible Ministers. That arrangement is unique, and reflects the interest that both the Crown and Māori have in the service.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. The select committee has proposed a number of changes to the bill, including providing a new Māori translation of the preamble, removing the Kaitiaki Trust from the bill, requiring the service to foster, where appropriate, its broadcasting capacity through appropriate training and education, and aligning the provisions relating to the independence of the service with a similar provision in the recently passed Television New Zealand Act. The select committee has also proposed the inclusion of a clause protecting the name “Māori Television Service”, and a provision requiring that any failures by the directors to report conflicts of interest are specified in the service’s annual report, as well as a tightened and clearer disputes resolution process.

The select committee has advised that the service’s functions as set out in the bill generally provide an appropriate level of guidance to the service, while still providing an opportunity for the board to draw its own interpretations. Members will also observe that the select committee has recommended that a number of the operational and administrative clauses be moved from the main body of the bill to the schedules. That will assist those who will be required to operate under the legislation.

I would like to elaborate on a number of the select committee’s recommendations, starting with the 5-year review. The Government and Te Pūtahi Paoho agreed, during the course of negotiations on the Māori Television Service model, that the Government would retain a short-term involvement in governance and implementation and an ongoing involvement in funding the service, which could necessitate a review of the legislation at some point in the future. The select committee has proposed that that intention be taken on board by proposing that this legislation be reviewed after 5 years from the date it comes into force. The review would cover the operation and effectiveness of the legislation, in accordance with terms of reference set by the responsible Ministers. The responsible Ministers will be required to consult Te Pūtahi Paoho on the terms of reference prior the commencement of the review.

The select committee proposes that the review report be presented to the House of Representatives within 6 years of the commencement date of the legislation. That time frame will allow the service, and the broadcasting industry as a whole, sufficient time to get on with the establishment and bedding down of the service. I commend that proposal to the House as a practical means of being able to evaluate and assess performance, and to identify changes that will improve the operational effectiveness of the legislation and the Māori Television Service.

The select committee has also proposed aligning clause 10, “Independence of Service”, with a similar provision contained in section 28 of the Television New Zealand Act. That more specifically excludes potential directions to the service by the responsible Ministers, Te Pūtahi Paoho, and directors acting without the authority of the board.

The select committee proposes there be greater clarity of the disputes resolutions process for instances where disagreements occur. The proposed changes set out a more deliberate procedure for the resolution of disputes, with mediation when both parties are unable to reach agreement.

The Māori Affairs Committee also proposed the removal of the Kaitiaki Trust from the bill. The sole purpose of the Kaitiaki Trust was to receive the ultra-high frequency management right from the Crown, and to transfer it to the Māori Television Service. The select committee identified the Kaitiaki Trust as being largely symbolic. The select committee’s arguments are well made. It is largely for the reasons it has given that I propose, at the appropriate time, to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that will provide for the safeguarding of the ultra-high frequency right by Te Pūtahi Paoho. The Supplementary Order Paper will also propose a number of minor technical amendments to the bill.

This bill provides for the establishment of the Māori Television Service. It may therefore be appropriate for me to briefly update the House on recent developments associated with the establishment of the service. The establishment board is at full strength, with seven members. The responsible Ministers and Te Pūtahi Paoho recently announced the appointment of Mr Wayne Walden as the chair and Ms Ani Waaka as the deputy chair of the Māori Television Service Establishment Board. The service has recently appointed a provisional chief executive, and is commencing the recruitment process for other key staff. It has moved into its studio and office premises in Newmarket, Auckland.

The Māori Television Service has moved significantly towards the signing of contracts for the provision of the ultra-high frequency transmission service, and is in negotiations over a digital satellite platform. It has completed the identification of its studio and broadcasting equipment needs, and is on the verge of signing contracts with preferred providers. There are hours of programming that have either been commissioned or are in the process of being commissioned. Arrangements have also been made with Television New Zealand to access archival material, and the service has advised me that Television New Zealand is being very helpful in lending support to the establishment of the channel.

The passage of this bill and the introduction of Māori television is long awaited by Māori in this country and by all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) : As a member of Parliament and a Māori member of Parliament, I am embarrassed to be associated with a bill that sets up a Māori Television Service that, far from being the triumph for Māori that it should be, has so far been an utter disaster and an utter debacle—and, on current form, is likely to remain so. That is a huge shame; it is hugely disappointing. This Government, and particularly this Minister, must take full responsibility for the debacle that has ensued over the last 3 years. The establishment of the Māori Television Service was a flagship policy of this Government when it came into power in 1999. The Government is now into its second term, and we are still inching our way towards that service, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that the proposals set out in this bill will achieve the objectives that have been set.

That situation is also disappointing given that so much of the work, as the Minister has pointed out, had its background, its genesis, in a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal in the early 1990s, a Privy Council ruling in 1993, and a Government intention, which was set out at that point, to establish a service. The previous National Government did a lot of the preparatory work in the 1990s. Also, while there were some mistakes, we learnt from them. We should have all learnt from those mistakes, but no. What has happened? In the 21st century, after all the work that was done in the 1990s, the mistakes go on and on. As I have said, there is no guarantee that this bill will minimise mistakes in the future. This Minister is responsible for the Māori Television Service, and he must make sure that what goes on from now on actually has the potential to succeed.

The other pity about this situation is that many New Zealanders actually want this service to work, as well. I am pleased to hear of the appointment of Wayne Walden. I know him reasonably well; in fact, I have worked with him. The fact that he has agreed to be the chair says something about the kind of grunt and expertise he is willing to bring to the service, and it says something about the kind of people who know him and respect his professionalism in the business world. They also probably want this service to succeed, having seen his appointment as chair of the board. As I say, many New Zealanders want this service to work. They want to know more about the Māori world. But what have they learnt in the 3 years since this Minister has had responsibility for the Māori Television Service? They have learnt that if there is a mistake—a big disaster, a debacle or whatever—the Government will overlook it and will not call for full accountability. In fact, nobody will take any responsibility for it whatsoever.

We saw that in the debacle over the John Davy appointment. In the end, who was shafted badly there? It was Millennium People. But did anybody in this House take responsibility for that debacle? No—and ultimately, when we are spending taxpayers’ money, someone in this House has the responsibility for that expenditure. This Minister did not take that responsibility—a Minister who says he is here to develop and grow Māori was willing to see this Government, the Prime Minister, and his colleagues shaft Millennium People just like that, as if it was totally to blame for that appointment. We know that it was not.

I come to the examination of this bill by the Māori Affairs Committee. Although some reasonable changes were recommended, the problem is that a number of matters remain outstanding. They were, in some respects, cursorily addressed by the Government members of the committee. They are matters like the structure, the functions, the funding, the control and reporting, and something that I am pretty committed to: issues of ownership and the treaty. I ask whether the Māori Television Service is a discharge of the Crown’s treaty obligations, or whether there is another rationale for it. That question was asked before the select committee, particularly by the Māori Television Service and others. It was not answered, though the structure and accountability mechanisms of this bill suggest that there is another rationale for the service.

When the Government speaks of a social obligation, one starts to think that this service is a muddle, like most other things that this Government does. Yes, it is being established because of the treaty, but hello, the dollars are to be allocated in the same way that the dollars for other projects are, and there are no clear, ultimate ownership provisions in this bill. So when we come to the Committee stage, I will be asking the Minister to answer things like that, because the submissions to the select committee from the Māori Television Service, in particular, were reasonable. Most of its submissions were ignored, but that does not make the issues go away. Since they have not been addressed now, those things will come back to haunt the Government.

The issue about whether this service is being established in satisfaction of a treaty obligation is important for future Governments, because the mishmash of this legislation is such that we do not know what the rationale for the service is. References to the treaty are littered throughout the bill—and particularly when we look at the background and the parts of the bill that state that it makes provision for cooperation between Māori and the Crown to preserve, protect, and promote te reo Māori—but with little effect. I do not know where, in any of the cases where judgments were made in the early 1990s, the obligations of Māori were referred to. But because it is a good thing for the Crown to look as though it is starting to discharge treaty obligations, it says it is doing that on the one hand, while on the other hand it is making others responsible for the service, as well.

So there is mishmash here. Who are the owners of this entity? There is uncertainty regarding the beneficial ownership of the Māori Television Service. What is the nature of the relationship between, and what are the status, rights, powers, and obligations of, the electoral college and the responsible Ministers? Those are important questions. As I have asked already, what about the funding? Are these Crown dollars or are they treaty dollars? I say to the Minister that there is a clear distinction in that regard, and that Māori will come back to a future Government and say the Government did not actually discharge its responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. That becomes a real concern for us in the National Party, because we envisage that one day we will be sitting on the Government benches. There is no way that we will want Māori to come back to us and say they are going to the courts again because this service was not provided in satisfaction of a treaty obligation. The Minister cannot get away with the mishmash of provisions that this bill is all about.

Neither can the Minister get away with pretending that the accountability mechanisms in this bill will work, when the conduct of the Government so far has been to sheet home to other people all the accountability for the things that have gone wrong. The Minister in charge of this bill is the Minister in charge of the expenditure of this money, and on current form this Minister has failed miserably. That does not augur well for the setting up of the Māori Television Service.

In conclusion, I say the now chief executive officer of the Māori Television Service, Derek Fox, came to the select committee on 7 November to give us a bit of a report back. The big concern at that time was the transmission platform. We know that the Government did not go with the CanWest TV4 option, which those who know about it said would have got this service out to a bigger percentage of Māori homes. That is the stupidity of it, as well—this is a Māori television service, and there are homes that it will not beam into. Derek Fox said the service had to go with what it had. He said that the decision that was made on the transmission platform was not the best option for the service, but the service had to go with it. I hope this Minister makes sure the service is a success.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : This bill arises from an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi for cooperation between the Crown and Māori to preserve, protect, and promote te reo Māori, or, more particularly, te reo Māori me ngā tikanga Māori. So far, so good. We learnt from the Privy Council decision that te reo was an endangered species, that the level of te reo usage in New Zealand had dramatically decreased, and that the Crown needed to take steps to protect it, in compliance with its obligations under the treaty. To that end, it is encouraging to see some members of this House taking a lead and participating in te reo courses so that they can improve their understanding of the language.

I recently attended the opening of a school block. I was one of the guests sitting at the front of the crowd when the national anthem was played. The children sang the first verse in te reo Māori and the subsequent verse in English, as is quite common these days. The trouble was that we were not given a song sheet to sing from. So we stood there, needing to sing the first verse in Māori, but without a song sheet to help. Fortunately, because I had been attending te reo classes I coped fairly well, but it made me realise that perhaps all members of the House, and all leaders in New Zealand, need to be faced with the situation where they are put in front of people and encouraged to demonstrate their knowledge or otherwise of te reo. Maybe if we did that we would find more leadership in New Zealanders as a whole learning te reo and advancing the language in that way.

I would be very happy to see New Zealand becoming more and more bilingual. I certainly personally encourage that trend. But is this a good way of doing it? Is this a good way of promoting te reo? We know already that the initial establishment funding has been increased from $6 million to nearly $13 million. We know that $30 million has been allocated to Te Māngai Pāho for programme funding, the bulk of which is to go to Māori television, and that that is to rise to $40 million per annum within 2 years. How much more will be ploughed into Māori television programming we are yet to see, but there is certainly a real danger, I think, that we will see more and more money going into Māori television for te reo language skills. We have to raise the question, therefore, of whether the money is well spent.

There is a suspicion already among a lot of New Zealanders that State-funded Māori enterprises have a propensity to fail. We cannot afford a situation where Māori television is simply another on the list of failures. We know that that is not always the case, that in Ngāi Tahu, for example, we see some very, very positive Māori involvement and enterprise, and that is to be strongly commended. What we need to avoid, as we bring together Māori and non-Māori and move forward in this nation, is enterprises that are poorly set up, and then find themselves failing, so that there is suspicion on future organisations and therefore New Zealanders become even more weary of State-funded Māori enterprises. It is my fear, and the fear of United Future, that this proposal and the Māori television scheme that is being set up comes within the category of being in huge danger of failing and simply adding to that situation.

Already we have found that there are scandals within the television service, and it has not even got off the ground. I do not need to go back over the ground of the scandals that we have seen happening, but already there is a suspicion, a black mark against the Māori Television Service. People are a little suspicious as to whether it will actually turn its act round and be a positive development, and achieve both for Māori and for New Zealand as a whole. If it is a lemon, if it is ineffective, if it is simply a black hole into which money is poured, with no real benefit to Māori or to New Zealand in general, then rather than help the situation it will further hinder Māori - non-Māori relationships.

There is the danger of that failure through three things. Firstly, there was a lack of vision on the part of the Government. Where is Labour’s 10 year plan for te reo? Where is its assessment of the need for development of te reo and the alternatives that are available to it? We do not see that. There is no vision. There is confusion among Government members, in terms of the direction they will go. Secondly, where is the research as to the likely viewer audience for this Māori television station? If we are going to have a dedicated television channel, who will watch it? Is anybody going to watch it?

The House will be aware of the exchange, which was publicised, that I had with Derek Fox, who is now the chief executive officer of Māori television, during the Māori Affairs Committee discussion on Māori television in October last year. I asked him what research had been done to establish the likely audience demand from the Māori television channel. He said that everybody he had talked to thought it was a good idea. I asked him whether that meant that no outside research had been done about the likely potential viewership. His reply was that I myself had said I was “Ngāti Pākehā” and that I did not understand Māori. He attacked me, rather than answering the question. I spoke to him afterwards and asked him whether any research had been done. He said he would send it to me. I said that unless United Future saw it we would not support the bill. We have still not seen any research whatsoever to demonstrate that anybody will watch that television channel.

What did my understanding of the situation have to do with the fact that he said I did not understand Māori? Was it that Māori like to act spontaneously and do things without planning? Was it that Māori will take money given to them, especially other people’s money, and not expect to be accountable for it? Was it that Mr Fox is building an empire for himself and he does not like people standing in his way as he creates it? I do not know, but I would be concerned if any of those things were proved to be true. I notice that there was even an argument from the service that Mr Fox heads to suggest that they should not be accountable.

The select committee report states: “In its submission, the Service argues that accountability requirements fetter the ability of its board to meets its obligations (set out in clause 8). It says a preferable structure would be to establish the Service under the Companies Act 1993, which it argues would remove many of the accountability requirements.” I am pleased to say that the select committee, which was made up of a majority of Māori, rejected that suggestion. That gives me hope that his view is not a view that most Māori hold, that there should be a lack of planning and enterprise, and a lack of accountability. The select committee states further: “The Service will be largely funded by the Government for the foreseeable future. The responsible Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for that funding. Accountability requirements are therefore necessary.” I certainly concur with that. But there has to be a lot of concern that, when the service itself questions whether there should be accountability for funding, we will not get the accountability we need.

I am also concerned about Labour’s contradictory stance, in terms of the furtherance of Māori - non-Māori relationships. We see on the one hand suggestions that there should be unity—the reconciliation, and the treaty settlements process are examples of that. On the other hand there is the segregation of Māori from non-Māori, a division within New Zealand—separate Māori voting on local authorities is an example of that.

Is this a unifying or dividing bill? Will this unify New Zealand or will it separate Māori into a segment? I think, from the tone of the bill, that it is a divisive bill that puts Māori to one side and separates them. United Future will not support the bill, for that reason. We see that it is creating a separate television channel that Māori will watch, and that New Zealanders will not be encouraged to watch it and develop their own te reo. I would like to see all New Zealanders have access through regional television, Māori programmes on regional television, and even national television, to encourage them to use te reo. That would be a far more healthy way of approaching and furthering the interests of te reo, than creating a separate structure. So because of inadequate planning, the danger of wasted resources, a black hole, the high probability of failure due to inadequate research and monitoring, and because it is divisive, United Future will not support this bill.

MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiāriki) : I had not intended to take a call in this debate. I simply sat here this afternoon to support my colleague the Hon Minister of Māori Affairs during the second reading of the bill. But then I listened to one of the previous speakers from the National Party, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, and I thought to myself that people obviously have very short memories or they just do not want the Māori Television Service to go to air.

I remind that member that there used to be a television service called Aotearoa Television. It went through some difficult times and then disappeared off the face of the earth. I say that a lot of the responsibility for that has to go to the previous regime, the previous Government. [Interruption] Not only did National underfund this television service, it refused to give it the support that it required. I am surprised to hear the interjections from the Hon Brian Donnelly, who should be standing in this debate to support what I am saying. Members from his party bit the dust because the commitment and the support were not there. I am very, very surprised to hear his interjections at this point in time.

I congratulate the Minister of Māori Affairs on the commitment he has put into this entire process. It has been difficult. It has been marred by a number of highly contentious matters. The Māori Television Board did its best to conduct a transparent process when it came to appointing a chief executive officer—so much so that it sought outside advice. But that advice was not sound and as a result a mistake was made, but the appropriate actions were taken thereafter. So some people have very short memories. Millennium People had to accept the blame for the mistake, but that is business. When a firm gives bad advice, it suffers the consequences. In this case, that is exactly what happened. But the board lifted itself up and got on with the business. Here we are today, in this House, debating a very, very important bill.

If the National Party spokeswoman on obviously everything cannot handle this television service going to air, then the problem is hers, or the problem is theirs.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Who hired Millennium?

MITA RIRINUI: There goes that member from up north again—the Hon Brian Donnelly—interjecting with something that his previous colleagues were very, very supportive of. Maybe he should read the Hansard, not me.

I stand to take a very, very brief call to support this bill, to support the Minister of Māori Affairs, and to congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on bringing the legislation to the House for debate.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) : New Zealand First has questioned the funding and programming of Māori television, especially when the items that affect Māori—like education, housing, health, and employment—should be the priority. Those are the matters that concern New Zealand First. We hear day in and day out about the statistics to do with Māori, because those are the things that affected Māori in the past and affect Māori today. In the case of the Māori television channel, is the transmission available in the north of the North Island, likewise on the East Coast, and north of Gisborne, including Gisborne? What is the cost to consumers? Are they in a financial position to have that transmission? If they are unemployed, how would that be financed? What is the housing situation? That sector of the community is struggling. With regard to education, what is happening with the truancy situation and the skill base of Māori? What about employment, and the social atmosphere out there, including law and order? What will be the quality of the programmes that Māori television will utilise in order to encourage education across the board? Will this programme—if and when it gets started—and the coverage it will receive play a large part in the direction that Māori take in retaining te reo me nga tikanga, or will it be strictly entertainment?

New Zealand First believes that the money that will be spent, and will continue to be spent, would be put to better use by improving the environment of positive education outcomes, improving housing and employment, and vastly improving health. Meeting those needs should be the priority. Until those matters are seen to, how will a sector of the New Zealand community survive to enjoy those treasures, which we hold dear to us within the bounds of a free society? The language will truly flourish when it is stress-free. The social structure of this country has changed. New Zealand First is not against promotion of the language and tikanga, but let us prioritise, settle the immediate needs first, then work towards those goals in an amicable manner that will benefit all. We are well aware of the Crown’s responsibility, as far as the treaty goes, but let us also be aware of the Government’s responsibility to the immediate needs of the people—that is, to govern wisely.

New Zealand First opposes the Māori Television Bill because of the glaring needs of this sector of the community, whose statistics provide proof of where the concentration of efforts should be placed. At a meeting of the Māori Affairs Committee, I asked Mr Derek Fox whether education would be included in that television programming and the answer was a straight no. I was sad to hear that. I asked why, and he said that it is strictly to entertain. He said that if one needed education, there is an organisation called the Ministry of Education. My question to him after that asked whether he would utilise the resources of the Ministry of Education, if they were available, to promote education. He answered no. What is the glaring need of Māori today? It is education. Education will contribute to Māori looking after themselves, becoming independent, and being independent of the State. We need to realise that when Māori have the skill base, they will be able to take care of their affairs in health, employment, and housing, and they will be able to contribute to our economy, whether locally or internationally.

I always remember the saying of Sir Apirana Ngata. He said: “Hold onto those things that are dear to you as far as our language and our tikanga is concerned as a top knot on your head, but also take the weapon of the Pākehā, which is education.” What do we have today? Our people, who were once a proud people, are putting their hands out rather than putting them up. Those are the issues that we need to face today. The millions that the Government is going to put into television will not solve the challenges and problems that our society has today. They will not, and I can guarantee that in 5 to 6 years’ time—or whenever there is a review of Māori television—what will still be there will be those statistics that are always being brought up in this House. So what is the answer? Is the answer Māori television? If we ask Tongan, Samoan, or Chinese people about their language and why they have retained it, they will say that they have retained it because they are taught it in their homes. They watch television, but they have retained their language because they are taught it in their homes.

I attended an education conference in Napier when I was a lecturer at the polytech. A guest speaker talked about how successful kōhanga reo was. During the break I asked him how many of those young people still retained the language when they went to State schools or any other school. The answer was : “Very few.” I asked why, and I was told that it was because the parents do not speak Māori. When children go home to their families, the language spoken is English. What has been done since then? Parents have been encouraged to learn the language so that they can speak with their children at home. The parents were embarrassed, because they did not understand what their children were talking about. Those things are right; they have been recorded.

I say to the Minister that we oppose this bill. We are looking at the common sense of it, and at where our priorities should lie. Once those priorities are sorted out, I will support him 100 percent on having Māori television. But members should not forget what is happening out there. I was questioned yesterday in Morrinsville, and I know that this issue is causing division amongst our people and amongst the citizens of New Zealand. Do we want that also? That is all I have to say. New Zealand First opposes the legislation for the very reasons I have given. I am sure that Māori will contribute to our society more positively when all those other things are sorted out.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) : I congratulate that member on his excellent speech and on his reasons for opposing this legislation. I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this legislation also. There is no reason that taxpayers should be forced to fund a separate Māori television service, and one that this Government has set up to fail. We all know that this is just a vote-buying exercise. It is interesting to look back on the election campaign, when this television service was promised. In fact, one could look back further than that, to when Derek Fox stated that he would set up a separate Māori party, which this Labour Government knew would challenge it because Mr Fox said that the Labour Government had not done enough for Māori.

That caused great nervousness in Labour’s ranks, so it cobbled together the Māori Television Service as a sop, first, to Derek Fox to get him on side. Of course, the Māori party was abandoned.

Look at the sad tale that the Māori Television Service has been since then. It was meant to be up and running months ago—it was meant to be going by June last year. Then we got the John Davy debacle, and the unseemly scrap in Cabinet between the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Broadcasting over how Māori television would go to air—would it be VHF or UHF?

We all know that Derek Fox made it quite clear that he preferred the TV3 option, whereby the Government would swap a radio FM frequency with TV3, for channel 4. If the Government had done that, the Māori Television Service could have gone to air almost immediately. It could have been out there now. Moreover, it would not be dependent on the State for handouts. That option would have given the Māori Television Service the opportunity to operate as an independent, commercially viable, stand-alone television channel that would not be dependent on the State for funding. It would have been a bit like Mai FM is now in Auckland, which constantly challenges the top-rating radio broadcasters because it is commercial.

Hon Parekura Horomia: How did it start?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Yes, it started with taxpayer funding, but with the way the Māori Television Service is now being run, it will be dependent on $13 million a year just to operate the service, and a predicted $155 million a year by 2005 just to make the programmes. The Minister of Broadcasting did not want that option, because he wanted the Māori Television Service to be broadcast through a channel provided by BCL, which is now the stand-alone company from Television New Zealand. As someone else pointed out, those who want to receive Māori television will now have to pay hundreds of dollars to tune into it, and if they live in an area where it is difficult to get reception—for example, behind a hill—they will have to pay to get extra aerials.

As I said, the Minister is setting up Māori television to fail. The Government is pandering to the Māori vote, and, more than that, I predict that this will provide ammunition for those rednecks out there who want to bash Māori, because this television service will hoover-up taxpayers’ money. In the end, it is doomed to fail.

My colleague Rodney Hide has already revealed a huge wastage of taxpayers’ money, which has been handed out to make television programmes for Māori television, and that has been used on booze-ups for Ministers. As we see more taxpayers’ money wasted, I predict there will be a repeat of the Aotearoa Television debacle, and that is so unfair, because New Zealanders who oppose this will just turn round, and say: “Look at Māori. They can’t run business. They are constantly propped up by the taxpayers.” Of course, it is in this Government’s interests to keep Māori dependent on Government handouts, so that it can get the Māori vote at the next election. I gave a lot of interviews last year to iwi radio stations, and they were totally opposed to the way this Government will broadcast Māori television. They knew it was being set up to fail, and they dreaded the backlash that will surely result from it.

Georgina te Heuheu raised a very good point when she mentioned the repeated intrusion of the Treaty of Waitangi into this legislation. I also predict that the Māori Television Service will be strangled by this Government’s passing of the Treaty of Waitangi buck into this legislation, especially when this Government cannot even define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and, instead, just claims that it is a nebulous, living, breathing document that is alive and well in Margaret Wilson’s office. How on earth is a television broadcaster meant to operate when it is strangled by the intrusion of the Treaty of Waitangi into the legislation that is set up to run it? The only good thing that has come out of this is the appointment of Wayne Walden, who will hopefully inject some accountability into this television service.

It is also interesting to note that this television service has resulted from litigation to the Privy Council—the same Privy Council that this Government will deny New Zealanders the right to appeal to. In its creeping move to republicanism, it will remove the right of appeal to the Privy Council, which is the same Privy Council that saved so-called precious te reo. I notice members are all very silent on that, and looking the other way, holding their heads in shame. Where would te reo be without the Privy Council? We have heard much cant about the need for members of this House to have lessons in how to speak Māori, and I notice that that arrogance always emanates from the bleeding-heart, white apologists. It would be really gratifying if members of this House took some lessons in English for a start, before they started to think about being bilingual.

As I say, the ACT party opposes this legislation. It is doomed to fail. If this coalition Government really wanted to do something about education and prosperity for Māori, it would give Māori parents some choice, and, as Bill Gudgeon has so passionately said, it would bring up some standards in education. It would do something about the appalling rise in suspensions and stand-downs among Māori students. An alleged 4,000 students are truanting, and nothing has been done about it. It would reform welfare, so that young Māori women would not be leaving school with no qualifications, to bring up their babies on welfare. Where is the Minister of Social Services and Employment when a poor woman is crying at 4 o’clock in the morning because the washing machine has overflowed from all the sheets that are dirty, and the baby is vomiting, and she has no one who will put his or her arms around her and give her a hug while she has a big howl? What is the $13 million and the $155 million doing to raise the standards of education for women like that?

If the Government wants to do something about education and prosperity for Māori, it should not spend all that money on an entertainment channel, which is doomed to fail, and which is fodder for the rednecks. The Government should do something about giving choice back to Māori parents—and all parents—and power in their children’s education. We oppose this legislation.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) : I stand with pleasure to take a very brief call. In response to the previous speaker, I have to observe that she will have the luxury of thinking about some of those deep imponderables that she confronted us with while she is in Cambridge in the UK for 3 months at the taxpayers’ expense. I tell Ms Coddington that I am not at all jealous, I am just a bit befuddled by the double standard that the ACT party continually exhibits. Like other members of the House, I note with great irony that the one Māori member of the ACT party seems conspicuously absent from the Chamber for the debate on this bill. I recommend this bill to the House.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : The Greens are pleased to say that we support the second reading of this bill, but we have some concerns that we hope will be dealt with in the Committee stage. We are very happy that the bill has finally come before the House; after spending some 12 months on the Order Paper, it is a long time coming. As has been mentioned previously, the whole issue concerning te reo as a taonga was first acknowledged by the Waitangi Tribunal in 1986. In 1993 the Privy Council made its decision, which was one of very few it did make in support of Māori issues. In that decision, the Privy Council again supported the funding of a special television service for the protection of that taonga. In 1996 we had the establishment of Aotearoa Television as a pilot, which then ended somewhat messily in 1997. Since that time, it has taken 6 years to finally develop legislation and a process for the establishment of a Māori television service that enables the Government to meet its treaty obligations. It is very overdue, and we are pleased to see it finally before the House.

The provision of a high-quality service focused on te reo and tikanga will make a huge contribution to both Māori and non-Māori communities. I am appalled to hear concerns that such a service will be divisive, given that those kinds of accusations are certainly not levelled at Television New Zealand, which concerns only one language in this country, and which is broadcast primarily in that one language. Its commitment to te reo and to tikanga has come about only in recent times, but, of course, that is not considered divisive. Yet when Māori are able to be reflected in one of the most important media opportunities that we currently have, that is considered divisive by some people.

They are wrong. This is not divisive. This is a way to enable all New Zealanders to have their views, concerns, and issues reflected in a television service that is primarily concerned with New Zealand concerns and views. It will be the only television service we have in this country that is primarily concerned with this country and its people, and that is where its real strength lies. It is a clear indication of how, in meeting treaty obligations and recognising the importance of te tiriti, the Government and others can provide a contribution through that treaty obligation to all people in this country, and help and establish community awareness and recognition of different values—values that are reflected in Māori and non-Māori communities. So we are very pleased to see this initiative coming to effect at some stage.

However, we do have some issues with the bill that I need to outline this afternoon. For us—and Sue Kedgley mentioned this in her first reading speech very well—the issue of the independence of the service from political interference is a serious concern. Although the Māori Affairs Committee did make some minor changes to the wording of the bill, none the less there are still provisions in the bill that will undermine the political independence of the service; issues such as the level of financial accountability that the service will have to Ministers and to the Government, if, every time it wants to buy a stapler, it has to get permission to do so. We believe that that kind of level of accountability could undermine by political interference. We believe that financial independence is crucial for a member of the fourth estate.

So we will be putting forward an amendment during the Committee stage that will address that issue, and ensure that in no circumstances are Ministers or any individuals, whether or not with the permission of the board, able to influence the programming, the content, or the management of the service in that respect. Māori services, whether this service or some such body as the Waitangi Tribunal, need to be accorded the same respect—the same standing—as any other similar body in our constitution. The protection of the fourth estate, its independence in what it reports, and the content of its reporting is very important to us, so we will be putting forward an amendment during the Committee stage.

We are also concerned about the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has put forward, particularly in relation to clause 28C in terms of the leasing of the UHF right to third parties, to ensure that any third party that may use that spectrum does so completely committed to the purpose of the service. We will be putting forward an amendment that makes some minor changes in wording, but none the less is a significant step in ensuring that any third party that takes on the spectrum will not only be committed to providing and promoting te reo and tikanga through the television service, but that it is also committed to ensuring that it will broadcast primarily in te reo at prime time, ensuring that at other times a substantial proportion of its programmes are in te reo, ensuring that in the presentation of the service the needs of children and adults who are learning te reo are recognised as far as possible and technically available, and also ensuring that practical access to the service will be maintained.

For us it is not just about the content of the service, but also about the delivery of the service that is essential. We look forward to putting forward our amendments at a later stage.

Finally, late last year we raised the concern about the spectrum and the choice of the Government to go with UHF instead of with the TV4 option. That is a very serious concern for us, because the success of the service relies very much on its ability to access communities, and for communities to see themselves reflected in that service. We are deeply concerned about that. Although it is very difficult for changes to be made to the bill at this late stage, we would like to see some kind of commitment from the Government to ensure that at least, for example, marae are able to access the service, and that there is funding provided for them to purchase aerials if they need to in order to ensure a high-quality level of service.

If we start providing a Māori-focused television service that suffers from really bad reception, or interference from other television receptions, it will be considered to be bad quality. It will be undermined as being not as good as other television, and will not get the support from the communities that it is supposed to support. It will not get the kind of recognition and standing from other non-Māori communities, on which it can have a great impact in encouraging the relationships, ethnic understanding, and relationship development between all peoples in this country.

So something like funding for marae would be extremely useful as some indication from the Government that it is committed to ensuring that all people get access to the television service. We look forward to discussion during the Committee stage, and we are pleased to support the bill at its second reading. Again, we would like to reiterate that we consider that the service is essential to this country, it will be an excellent way to recognise te reo as being the only official language in this country, and not at all divisive, but as a way of bringing together communities—an essential issue in the 21st century.

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) : I am very pleased to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. I believe that it is very good legislation. I congratulate the Hon Parekura Horomia and also members of the Māori caucus and the Māori Affairs Committee on bringing the bill back to the House. This bill is an important bill, and the Māori Television Service will be an important part of the cultural flavour of our country. I speak as a younger member for whom te reo Māori and tikanga Māori is not some sort of strange, abstract thing. It is something that we have grown up with, and something that I think all New Zealanders will enjoy. I do not agree with members who say that this will be divisive between Māori and Pākehā. Within the Pākehā community there are a growing number of people who want to enjoy and understand more of Māori culture and have that intertwined in their life. There is no doubt about that.

I was very interested to listen to the subscription figures on the radio on Sunday for Mana magazine, where half of the subscribers to that magazine are Pākehā. This legislation is about New Zealand. It is about two peoples. This is a bicultural bill, and I think members will be quite surprised how much support there is in the community for it. I come from a generation that does not need to look at the words of both languages of the anthem of our country. It is something we instinctively know. This legislation is something that members will look on, I believe, with pride, when they cast their votes for it.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) : This bill, which is being reported back from the Māori Affairs Committee, is a huge and lasting monument to the incompetence of the Minister of Māori Affairs, and of the Government. As my colleague Georgina te Heuheu has told the House, the National Party will be voting against it. I tell the Minister that on the basis of the vast array of political riches that have been forthcoming from the Māori Television Service to date, I look forward to many, many happy hours in the select committee, in parliamentary question time, and in dealing with the media at his expense. Because that has been the track record of this bill to date, and it will no doubt be the track record of this legislation in the future.

It is worth reminding the House today that the Minister of Māori Affairs announced the launching of the Māori Television Service on 11 November 2000. He said that during the next year—2001—we would see the Māori Television Service. Well, we have seen a few changes, a few modifications, and a few updates, since that time. Indeed, the major one would have had us believe that the service would be on air in June of last year. Now we are told that if we are lucky—if I might use that word—we will see something at the end of this year. Whichever way we look at it—whether we look at the funding, the governance, the appointment of management, the programming, or the transmission—it is hard to imagine a bigger cock-up than this bill, at any level.

I tell the Minister that I do not think his stocks with the Prime Minister will be looking too flash, because I recall something that the Prime Minister said on 18 February 2001. She said: “I saw it was going round in circles and so I raised it at cabinet and what we’ve done is brought a group of officials together to get the clear options up to the cabinet. We just weren’t getting any proper advice to be honest.” That is what the Prime Minister said about the Māori Television Service on 18 February way back in 2001. Over 2 years ago she said: “We want some options—and fast ... I want some decisions. I want to be in a position to make decisions instead of seeing the issue go round in circles at a bureaucratic level.” That is what the Prime Minister said about this legislation and about this service, over 2 years ago.

We now know that the Minister in whose name this bill sits before the House today has, piece by piece, had most of the decisions taken off him and given to the Minister of Finance. The reason is that the Prime Minister has been losing confidence in the Minister who is in charge of this bill, as has this House.

My colleagues and I in the National Party believe that this has been a very sorry saga, and I thank Deborah Coddington for reminding the House today of the genesis of this service. She reminded the House that the starting point for the bill was in the plan of Mr Derek Fox, now the chief executive, previously the chairman, to set up a new Māori political party to challenge the Labour Party in the Māori seats, and that he personally—Mr Fox—was going to challenge the Minister of Māori Affairs in his own electorate. Then the Prime Minister, who could see the Government’s hold on the Māori seats looking a bit shaky, decided to invite Mr Fox to afternoon tea—and a very nice afternoon tea it must have been, indeed, as Ms Coddington has reminded the House, because Mr Fox walked out of that afternoon tea a very happy man. He was told of the wonderful prospects that lay ahead for him as the chairman-to-be of the new Māori Television Service.

Perceptive members on this side of the House said: “Ah, there’s something rotten going on here! This sounds like something that should happen in one of those Third World African countries, not something that should happen in New Zealand. It looks like this man has been bought off.” We were told by the Prime Minister: “Oh, no no! Mr Fox is still going to set up his new Māori political party, and Mr Fox is going to be paid only $36,000 a year for a very, very part-time job as chairman of the Māori Television Service.” We thought that maybe we were wrong, that maybe this was kosher after all. But revelation after revelation in documents that came out under the Official Information Act told us that our original suspicions were right. There was something very, very rotten indeed in the genesis of this Māori Television Service. The intention was to buy Mr Fox off from setting up his new Māori political party, and the $36,000, which was the maximum fee he was going to get, turned into a very much larger director’s fee. Then it got topped up again by a new consultancy arrangement, so that he was to receive $100,000, near as damn it, and $50,000 in expenses on top, not even for a full year, either.

So members on this side of the House scratch their heads and say in amazement that they were suspicious initially about this arrangement, but that in no way did they envisage things could go as far and as badly wrong as they have done. Having gone through the saga of the Davy appointment, we now have the very same Mr Fox on $160,000 as the chief executive. I have been flicking through some of the papers that have just been released, as the State Services Commission was asked to comment on Mr Fox’s contract. These are indeed revealing, because there is a requirement for the State Services Commission to comment on these contracts, and in particular on the job descriptions. I quote Mr Dave Cox on the job description for Mr Fox: “I am a bit worried about the job description. If as you say it is the same as used for Davy, then defending the Fox appointment on the grounds of te reo, intimate knowledge of the establishment process so far, and broadcasting background, could be problematic. Will you line Davy up against these criteria?” .

What he is saying is that the appointment of Mr Fox could not possibly be the result of the application of the job description to his particular set of skills. It goes on: “However, if the job description were now to change, it is even worse, as Fox has already been identified as the preferred candidate. An alteration of the job description after the event is a no-no.” That is what the State Services Commission told the Minister’s own officials who signed the cheques and okayed the process. It said that there was no proper basis in process for the appointment of Mr Fox as the chief executive, that the job description that got Mr Davy appointed was the same job description that got Mr Fox appointed, and that one could not possibly line up both those candidates and justify both of their appointments under the same job description. Then it went on to say that, of course, changing that job description was a “no-no”, so we have a little bit of a problem on our hands in terms of process.

Finally, because the directors decided to push the announcement out anyway, the Government had to go along for the ride. I say to the Minister today that as I vote to oppose this service, I promise him that in the select committee, in the questions process in the House, and in the other avenues under the Official Information Act that are available to members, I will be very vigilant about this service, because I know, and he knows, that the Government’s motives in passing this bill are entirely political. They are entirely concerned with propping up the political fortunes of the Labour Party and with ensuring that Mr Fox is taken out of the play as a candidate and as the leader of a new political party, and we will hold the Government to account.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) : I remind the Labour Party that the idea of having a Māori television service has been around since I was in about form 2, when television was available to the masses in New Zealand. Certainly, we kids from the poor side of town had to wait longer than others before we got to have television in our own homes. But the idea of a Māori television service is not new at all, and I am delighted that we are now seeing real progress on the provision of such a service. My pronunciation of Māori words is abysmal. I keep working on it, and I know there are a lot of people who similarly want to improve their pronunciation. In fact, at 6 a.m. this morning I was watching Te Karere and listening very carefully. I am also aware from the other part of my heritage of languages that were dying, such as the Welsh and Celtic languages, where those countries very wisely invested time in their languages so that they would be preserved for future generations. It must be an absolute tragedy for people to know that the language of their forefathers and foremothers would possibly be lost.

This is important legislation. I cannot understand the—I was going to say covert, but I will be frank and say overt—the overt opposition with unpleasant undertones behind it from some of the members of the Opposition. We need to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is about reflecting the New Zealand that we want to see for the future. Our children support this kind of legislation. The things being said by some members of the Opposition just makes them look like dinosaurs. Let us get on with this bill. It is a very good, progressive piece of legislation.

EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) : I will just take a short call on this bill. My fellow MP Mr Gudgeon has obviously covered all the good ingredients. I will cover some of the good and some of the bad. We all know that New Zealand First will oppose this bill on these very important points. This proposed channel has already suffered some credibility problems with regard to the appointment of Mr Davy and the recent restructuring of all that.

Firstly, I want to look at coverage. Obviously, this is a concern in the Wairarapa and on the East Coast. As we have already heard, a large number of iwi in north Auckland will not be able to get coverage. If that is correct, then why are we going ahead with this thing? I have spoken to some of the people on the East Coast, and to Ngāti Porou, and there will be a problem up there.

I feel a bit whakamā for the Minister sitting there all on his lonesome. Where are the other Māori MPs? Why are they not here supporting the bill?

Hon Parekura Horomia: They are at the tangi.

EDWIN PERRY: That is fine, but I am very surprised that they are not sitting around the Minister supporting him in respect of this important channel.

The other thing I want to touch on is te reo. New Zealand First is not against the pronunciation of Māori and the resurgence of te reo. If I did not support it, my mother-in-law would clip my ears when I got home tonight, so I have to support it.

The other issue is cost. To be a member of this particular channel will put pressures on some of the families who subscribe to it. I remember visiting Hawaii, driving past some of the back parts and seeing a receiving dish. I think the dish was more expensive than the house and the car. We do not want to see that sort of thing emerge here in Aotearoa.

I have some real problems with this budget. Wayne Walden, who came in to restructure this project after the debacle with Mr Davy, has a credible background. He was the chief executive officer of Deka and has a lot of experience on how to make a dollar, but—and this is the “but” part of it—Mr Walden and his team were asked to put a new budget together, and also asked what they would need to take this thing to the next part of the proposal. They came up with a figure of about $12 million. But what did the Labour Government offer them? It offered a lot less than $12 million. How often will the Government keep doing that? As I have just said, this channel is already behind the ball because of finance, and is on the road to destruction.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Way behind!

EDWIN PERRY: Yes, way behind! During the Māori Affairs Committee hearing I asked Mr Fox what this channel would require now that it was hopefully getting itself back on its feet. He mentioned that they would have to look at new technology offshore. I am sure that the $12 million that Mr Walden budgeted for was part of that. I have some concerns about the technology that will be put in place.

I now want to touch on the issue of failure. If this project fails, who fails? The Government will not fail, but once again Māoridom will fail, because the appropriate measures have not been taken to make sure that this thing stacks up.

With those short words, New Zealand First will oppose this bill—not for some of the reasons that have been mentioned, but for good reasons, and on good common-sense issues.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Veterans' Affairs) : I move, That the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. The bill fulfils an important pre-election promise to enable veterans of working age to participate in voluntary or paid employment should they be able. Making this change, and providing financial support to veterans when they are unable to work, and sustaining that support while they make the transition back into the workforce, will benefit their overall rehabilitation.

This bill has the strong support of both parties within Government. I would also like to thank both United Future and the Greens for their support to ensure that the Government had the necessary support. It would be remiss of me not to thank parties from across the House that offered their support for the bill. I acknowledge the work undertaken by the Social Services Committee, which is very ably chaired by my colleague Georgina Beyer, the Labour MP for Wairarapa, and a strong supporter of the veteran community, and, indeed, the work of the committee as a whole. I acknowledge the officials who worked on this bill. In particular, I thank the director of the Office of Veterans Affairs in New Zealand, Jessie Gunn, and other officials from that office.

This bill acknowledges the special status of New Zealand’s war veterans, and the ongoing impact that service in a war or emergency has on an individual’s life, and on the lives of his or her family. This legislation is an example of that, as it provides assistance while enabling working-age veterans to make choices and manage the impact of their service on them and their families. The intention of this bill is to provide veterans who are under retirement age with a mechanism for rehabilitation. A point of difference with this bill, compared with other social security legislative measures, is that it does not contain a definition of full-time work. That will allow veterans to work any number of hours, depending on their capability, without removing their entitlement to a veteran’s pension.

The Government introduced two Supplementary Order Papers. The first restored in legislation, for consumer price index adjustment purposes, that the minimum level of the veteran’s pension for a married couple is not to be less than 65 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. The second amendment amended the schedules to allow for an increase in the rates of pay, in line with the increase of 2.72 percent in the All Groups Consumer Price Index. Both changes are quite important. I am pleased that the House supported the Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage.

The provisions in this bill will provide for the future needs of younger members of the veteran population, and passing it fulfils another pre-election promise. I am proud to serve as Minister of Veterans Affairs in supporting the passage of this bill through its third reading.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) : National is supporting this legislation, and I imagine that every single party in the House will be supporting it. The bill rectifies some anomalies in the legislation, which have been recognised by all parties. It recognises that increasingly in modern times veterans will be active in campaigns of often quite short duration—rather than those on the scale of wars like World War I or World War II—and in a whole series of events that we know well from our post-World War II history, like the Korean or Vietnam wars. But on top of that, there are vast numbers of specialised UN supervisory operations, and many of those are extremely demanding. We in this House and in this country often do not fully recognise just how demanding service is, for example, on the Lebanese border. Having talked to a number of the people who worked there, I know it is dangerous, that people are at risk of serious injury, and that soldiers, sailors, and others working there from other countries have been injured and even killed.

This more modern approach recognises that it is no longer appropriate for the Government of the day to declare a particular category of service as qualifying for pensions. It is more important to examine each individual’s service history and ask whether he or she suffered disablement or injury in the course of service to New Zealand, and recognise that. I welcome that approach. I have had—and I am sure many members of Parliament have had—submissions and letters from constituents who have had huge difficulty in getting not just the current Government, but also the previous Government, to recognise the nature of that service and recompense veterans properly for their injuries. With this change of administration and the provisions of the legislation in the House today, I would like to think that those kinds of issues will be in the past, and that it will be fundamentally easier for our service people. They have a demanding vocation—not just when shot and shell are being fired, but in terms of the whole nature of the service itself. It taxes the body and mind in a way that probably no other vocation does. That is why we have to have special legislation, and why we have to update that legislation, in order to recognise the changed nature of armed conflict.

I want to talk about a couple of broader issues. I note that our country handles these matters differently from other countries. For instance, we essentially have two types of war pension. The first is a disablement pension that is available at whatever age a person is disabled. It tends to be quite a modest sum, additional to other income. On top of that, when veterans reach the statutory retirement age of 65, or, more accurately, the eligibility age for New Zealand superannuation, there is an election. The veteran either takes New Zealand superannuation or the war pension. They are the same amount of money, and personally I have always found that to be something of an anomaly. Certainly, there is still the disablement pension or some limited entitlements as well, but it seems to me that we have not properly recognised that a person in receipt of a war pension post-65 should really be getting a bit more than New Zealand superannuation.

The argument in the past, for good and proper reasons, was that the country simply could not afford it. Certainly, the number of veterans from World War I and World War II was such a huge percentage of the total population that I suspect the country felt it could not afford to provide, say 150 percent, and service was recognised in other ways—educational benefits in the 1950s and 1960s, settlement on farms and in businesses, and so forth. Both National and Labour Governments have done a great deal over the years to recognise that service—but that was then. All of those people are older now, and, almost exclusively, retired. Yet we do not now financially recognise that service; we say it was recognised in the past. Knowing that veterans have been involved in dangerous service, and given that the numbers who serve in our armed forces are so much smaller now as a percentage of our total population, I think that one of the issues we will have to examine as a Parliament and as a Government is whether we as a community should recognise that maybe an additional payment beyond the level of superannuation is justified, once those servicemen and servicewomen reach 65.

I know that the Royal New Zealand Returned Services Association has raised that question with the Government. It has certainly done so with the Minister, Mr Harry Duynhoven, and no doubt talked with Minister George Hawkins. As I said, I understand the reasons that such a payment was felt not to be financially possible in the past, but I have to ask the Government whether that issue should not be looked at afresh. The nature of the service is different today, and the numbers of citizens involved—male and female—is so much lower. The circumstances that led to the original legislation are different today. So whilst we have recognised an anomaly today—and that is an important thing, and will be welcomed by veterans throughout New Zealand—we still need to look at that broader question.

I know that there are big differences from time to time in this House about whether our nation should be involved in any particular conflict. I am not going to go into that, because I do not think it is appropriate to do so in this speech. But I would go so far as to put on the record that there are those differences, and that they are increasingly being understood. Indeed, they were well-reflected in question time today. That is not the issue for the veterans. They do not make the decisions about where they should serve; those decisions are made by the people that they and the rest of New Zealanders elect. We should always remember that. They do not get to make the choice, but in each and every case, they serve our country valiantly and loyally. What we are doing today is recognising that service.

The reason I have mentioned that is that just recently I was at the return of Her Majesty’s vessel Te Kaha at Devonport. The families there had waited 8 months for their family members to return, yet outside the gates there was a group of protestors. I thought: “Why are you doing this; why are you protesting against these service people?” It was not the service people’s decision, although I am sure that they wanted to be involved. Fundamentally, protests should be aimed at those who make the decisions. I would like to think that there is a greater maturity in civil society in that people understand the difference between those who serve their country on the directions that Governments elected from this House make and those who make the decisions. It is a hugely important distinction, and I was extremely disappointed to see those protestors there that day.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : It is a noble and proper thing that any nation recognises the contribution of those who give service in its defence. The notion of war pensions is one that has a resonance, when one looks around this Chamber and sees the plaques that commemorate the various battlefields on which New Zealanders have given service over a long period of time. Although I was not around at the end of World War II, I have seen the newsreels, I have read the newspapers, and I have heard the statements that echoed those of Lloyd George in an earlier time, about a land fit for heroes to live in, and all the opportunities that were promised the returning veterans about the nation they would be a part of rebuilding. Now, 60 years later, when we look at the state of our war pensions administration, it pulls us up very quickly that that rhetoric has not often been matched by the way the law has been applied.

I am delighted to support this bill, because it tidies up a number of issues that have been left to languish for far too long. I find it extraordinary, for instance, that only by this bill are we transferring provisions for veterans’ pensions to the War Pensions Act—which was passed in the year I was born. It has been part of a transitional piece of legislation since 1990.

Rodney Hide: When you were born!

Hon PETER DUNNE: No, that is some time after I was born. I was just about to start school! But veterans might well be forgiven for wondering what priority was attached to their well-being, and what gratitude to their contribution, by the historically haphazard way in which the law has been applied. There will be some who will say that those events occurred a long time ago—even though there are still New Zealand military personnel involved in conflict situations—that the notion of “veteran” really is something that belongs to a bygone era. I challenge anyone who holds that view to spend even a modicum of time with people who have served and suffered, not just themselves, but through the loss of comrades in conflict; or any of the other deprivations that go hand in hand with that situation. They would quickly be disabused of the notion that the concept of a veteran is something that belongs to the past. It is a mark of pride for many veterans that they are treated differently, and it is important that this bill preserves that distinction, even if the monetary value of the pension payable to them does not differ significantly from national superannuation. It is the point of separation that is the important distinction. By continuing to treat them under the title “war pensioner”, we continue to recognise their achievement. That is why this bill is important, because it ensures that on into the 21st century, as perhaps the numbers of veterans thin, that recognition does not dim. United Future is pleased to support this bill.

I conclude with some reference to the comments made by the speaker who preceded me. I was intrigued by his comments that perhaps we should, in effect, pay a premium to war veterans who attain the age of eligibility for national superannuation. The cynic in me suggests that that is an easy promise to make because the numbers are, in a sense, reducing—though I am not suggesting that that was the member’s attitude. It is a far more substantial issue than that, and one that merits serious consideration. It is not a question of a two-tier arrangement, but more a question of saying that given what those people have been through, given all the other stresses and strains they have endured in the years subsequent to their service, is there a little more we can do? We have already had inquiries into various allegations that exposure to certain toxic chemicals or nuclear explosions, or the like, have had a detrimental impact on the health of not just those who were allegedly exposed, but also their descendants. Many will claim that other less-specific conditions and problems are a lasting by-product of their service. It may well be, therefore, that something along the lines that the member has suggested has merit. That proposal is not part of this legislation, but I think it is something that perhaps this House, maybe on a bipartisan basis, might want to give some consideration to.

In that respect, can I step way outside this bill—because again it has some relevance to the issue—and simply acknowledge the work that the member who preceded me has done to protect the employment of volunteers who give their time for military engagement. I hope that issue can be resolved fairly shortly, because those people might be the servants of today but they are the veterans of tomorrow, and they also deserve recognition. I am happy to indicate United Future’s support for the third reading of this bill.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) : New Zealand First is satisfied with this bill, so we support it. If it were possible, we would like to see an increase in the veterans pension, in recognition of the service of those people to their country. I suppose I could stand here and say that I am one of those persons who would be eligible for this pension. Only about 2 weeks ago I attended my battalion’s reunion in Hastings, and on the list were the names of about 200 men who have already passed away. It saddened me to see that.

But getting back to this bill, I say that in the past the men and women who served—I am aware especially of those who served in the Second World War—in the armed forces were not aware of the benefits available to them as service people. Some have passed away as a result of their service in the desert, but they were not aware of the benefits they could have claimed. They died without having that facility offered to them. Maybe that was because of their lack of knowledge, or ignorance, of what was available to them. But I think it is the responsibility of this Government, and was the responsibility of previous Governments, to make our servicemen and servicewomen aware of what is available to them. I look at the battalions of about 600 men and women that have served in East Timor. My battalion was a full operational battalion of 1,040 men—no women. A lot of the guys asked me this question in Hastings: “What are we entitled to, as veterans?”

I visited Australia towards the end of last year. A great number of the servicemen whom I served with are now living in Australia, and have lived there for quite a few years. They commented on the way that the Australian Government recognises them and takes care of them, and said it is way beyond what our own Governments have done for our people here. When I listened to the previous speakers, I was thinking that our service people deserve more than they get now. They would never ask for what they should have; they are too proud to do that. So we need to look at how we provide for the people who have served our country. How can we make them aware that they are entitled to this pension as a form of appreciation that this nation offers them? It will be a few years yet before I fall into that category. But I think I might just take that pension up when the time comes, because I am now aware of what is there for me and for those who have served our country.

About 3 weeks ago I was asked a question that I did not want to answer. It was whether I had been involved in taking the lives of any of the men or people I had fought against. That was a very hard question for me to answer. My reply was: “I have photos. Do you want to see them?”. The questioner hesitated, because he did not think I had been involved in that kind of action. It has had an effect on me, as a person who has served in the services. Whenever I am driving today and a car backfires, my reaction is immediate. Sometimes my wife has looked at me when she has travelled with me, and she has asked me what was going on, because I have jumped. I have reacted to that sound as if I were in action, even though that was over 30 years ago.

Nearly every day of the week I get correspondence from veterans who have served in South-east Asia, asking what I can do about Agent Orange, and also from the naval service people who served around Christmas Island during the testing of the nuclear bombs there. I was at university in Hawaii when one of those bombs went off on Christmas Island. That night was brighter than the day. I did not realise that we had service people serving there, in that area. Those men—and women, if there were any on those ships—are still asking what the Government will do about that service. That is an indictment on our Governments, which sent those men and women away.

David Parker: And the British Government.

BILL GUDGEON: I am talking about the New Zealand Government. Let us forget about the British Government; we made our decisions here. So I ask what is being done for those people.

New Zealand First supports this bill. Hopefully, we will look at this pension not as something we owe to service people but as something we give to them in appreciation of the service that they have given in order to enable us to have what we enjoy today. When I first came into Parliament, many people looked at the Returned Services Association badge that I wear. A guy in our office did not wear his Returned Services Association badge. I said he should wear it, and now he now does. Why is that? It is because I reminded him of his responsibility, and of the service he rendered to our country. Now he wears his badge every day.

Have any members been brought up in an environment where they were surrounded by men who had served our country, and saw the battle scars and the bayonet wounds on them? As a kid I poked my finger in and out of the shrapnel holes in my father’s legs. I have seen the shape of a bayonet on the back of one of my uncles. But not once did they ask for an appreciation of their service. They died that way. In fact, my father died because of the shrapnel in his body, which caused the cancer he died from.

I am bringing members back to earth here. I say we should look after our service people and take care of them. They need to be taken care of, without having to ask the Government for help. As a returned serviceman, I advise that strongly. When I look at the men whom I served with—over a company of them have passed on, and have not enjoyed recognition by the Governments that sent them away overseas—I feel sorry for them. But those people would do it again, if they had to. In fact, they ask why they are not in Iraq. That is the spirit that these people have. They are prepared to do that. I did not answer that question. So I say that shows the quality of the people we have in our country.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) : I listened with interest to what the member who has just resumed his seat had to say. I appreciated the considered contribution he made on the bill. In respect of his questions about the level of pension that is being paid to our veterans, I am sure that he will be aware from his notes, when he has a moment to read them, that the minimum level of a veterans pension for a married couple remains legislated for at not less than 60 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. That is something that has been fought for, long and hard.

I have taken an interest in this legislation, not only because of my electorate constituency but also because of my own interest in the issue. I, too, come from a family that has served this country for three generations. In my generation, my husband and my brother were also in the New Zealand services. They, too, would never ask for anything—as most people who have served our country would not, either. But I am very pleased that after many years we are able to bring this legislation into the House. It is timely, and it has been well considered. I am delighted to say that at long last, after spending 6 years in Opposition, it is wonderful to be in Government and to see it do something tangible about the issue. I commend the bill to the House.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) : It is a great honour to follow Mr Bill Gudgeon, who is one of the now few members of this Parliament who have served overseas. There was a time when it would be hard to imagine getting elected to Parliament, not having been a returned serviceman. We are fortunate indeed to have the experience and insights that Mr Bill Gudgeon brings us. He has been on patrol in the jungles of South-east Asia with a band of brothers, and he knows full well what those of us who have not served know—what it is like to serve. He also knows what it is like to come back to New Zealand, and what it is like, 30 years on, when driving a motorcar down the road, to still be reminded, at a moment’s notice, of something that happened so long ago. It is an honour to follow him in this debate.

This is a bill that reflects well on this Parliament. It is also one that reflects well on this Government. We have at long last, I think, gone some way towards addressing the special concerns of veterans in this country, and I commend the Government for that. I also think it bodes well that this Parliament is of one voice in agreeing that this bill is right and proper but that we as members of Parliament have to work together to do better for our servicemen and servicewomen. We have to do that not just because it is right, and not just because there is an implicit promise to every serviceman and servicewoman, but because of a very practical, pragmatic reason. Everyone, I believe—I think I can count on my Green colleagues on this—wants us to have a strong military. We want servicemen and servicewomen who are professional, who are competent, who have high morale, and who are good at what Governments ask them to do. I cannot imagine that anyone in this Parliament would say otherwise. We might disagree about how they should be deployed, where they should be deployed, and how they should be resourced, but it is in the interests of every member of Parliament that we have a good, competent, and professional military.

We have been reminded in these times, watching television nightly, that a man or a woman who puts on a uniform without being consulted, without being asked for his or her opinion, can be sent into harm’s way. Once those service people have those uniforms on, their lives are at risk, their bodies are at risk, and their minds are at risk. I think it is important that the young men and young women who are thinking about signing up to serve with our services can be confident that if they are damaged in war, and if they are damaged in service to their county during peacetime—damaged not just physically but psychologically and emotionally—then whatever Government is in office, they will be looked after because they are men and women who have served. If we do not do that, how can we expect to have a good military? It is not enough just to pay well—and we all believe, I think, that they should be better paid and better resourced—but there has to be a concern about how a serviceman or a servicewoman will be looked after following service.

So I think we have made progress with this bill, and I think we have made progress with this Parliament, because the best thing we can do is to keep politics out of this. I do not hear of anyone standing up in this House and saying that we should not be doing what we are doing. I think it is right that Opposition members chide a Government to do better, but let them remember that when their term in Government comes, they too are honour-bound to look after our servicemen and servicewomen. I congratulate the Prime Minister and this Government on this bill and on the moves they have made. I chide them for not going far enough, but today is not the day for that. I congratulate this Parliament on its support for veterans and—I say this to Mr Gudgeon—on still having veterans here who truly know the horrors, the thrills and spills, and the scars and tears of service.

It is important also that we put on the record the important turn-round in attitude that has occurred in the Office of Veterans Affairs. There has been a 180-degree turn-round, and that has been achieved by the efforts of the Prime Minister and—I do not think the Prime Minister would mind if I took something away from her—by the good work of Colonel Jessie Gunn and her staff, who have turned round a department that treated veterans as beneficiaries on the take, trying to pull a fast one, to an office that is special and understands that veterans are special—that they are proud people who do not easily put their hands up. Mr Gudgeon is right: the Office of Veterans Affairs has to go looking for its clients, because they can lie out there in our country for 30 years, badly damaged, badly scarred, and too proud to put up their hands and ask for help. It is important we recognise the work that Colonel Jessie Gunn and her staff do. They do what they do on a very, very modest budget, and they have to cover the whole country. I am sure that, as MPs, we have had one or two veterans come through our doors. I am sure that we realise what a tough job it can be tending to the needs, concerns, and issues that confront them and their families.

On behalf of this Parliament, we should all salute Colonel Jessie Gunn for the work she does. For the first time in many, many years, we have in the Office of Veterans Affairs a leader who empathises with the plight of veterans and who does not see the Office of Veterans Affairs as a cost-centre to be administered. Veterans—from whatever theatre, from whatever age, from whatever period—are seen as proud servicemen and servicewomen who need to be looked after for the simple reason that they donned a uniform and served their country and who have, for the rest of their days, a contract with the Government that we are duty-bound and honour-bound to uphold. Let us all agree on this: Colonel Jessie Gunn has done a wonderful job.

This bill is a good one. Let us strive as a Parliament to do better. Let us strive as a Parliament to support the Office of Veterans Affairs and to get it some more resources. All our pious words are nothing without the necessary resources that are needed to look after our veterans so that we do honour the promise of a land fit for heroes.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : On behalf of the Green Party I would like to say how pleased we are to see the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) finally through its third reading debate today. I know that there are a lot of veterans out there who have been waiting for this long overdue piece of legislation to become law. It is very timely that it is finally happening just a couple of weeks before Anzac Day 2003.

This bill helps consolidate the legislation dealing with veterans’ entitlements under the War Pensions Act and away from the morass of social welfare law. While I hold my own reservations about the negative way in which beneficiaries are viewed by all too many in our community, I can also understand why veterans want the dignity of recognition separately and in their own right. Although the legislation around the actual machinery of payment of war pensions stays with the 1964 Social Security Act, the fact that this bill ensures that the overarching law will be clearly distinguished from the Act is welcomed by submitters and, I think, by all MPs who sat on the Social Services Committee.

The Green Party is also pleased that this bill finally puts people in receipt of war pensions on the same footing as other people on income support, in terms of giving those of working age the right to work, either voluntarily or in a paid job, and having their pension abated. But the bill also distinguishes war veterans from other beneficiaries in that it makes special provision for them to be able to work any number of hours without having their entitlement to the war pension taken away from them. Again, this reinforces the fact that veterans have a special status because of what they have sacrificed for their country, and I believe no one in this House will ever begrudge them that.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge, firstly, the people who had the courage to make oral and written submissions on this bill to our select committee. It was very emotional to hear from some of those people. Some of them were getting on in years, and it was touching to see people who had made the effort to come to Wellington and speak to the committee directly, and to hear their voices. I also acknowledge, as others have done, the Office of Veterans Affairs, the officials who helped guide us through the bill, the other members of the select committee, and all the other MPs in this House who support this bill, which has been a long time coming.

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) : I rise to take a very short call, just to follow on in the multi-partisan approach that has been taken on this bill. It is a good example, not only of the Labour-Progressive Government honouring a pre-election commitment but also of Parliament recognising the special role that war veterans play in our country.

The one key point I would like to put on the record relates to some of the changes we made through the progression of the bill from its introduction. The bill will be of huge benefit to the veteran community, because we have been able to increase the minimum level of a veterans pension for a married couple to not less than 65 percent of the average ordinary time weekly wage. That is significant because previously that rate had been set at 60 percent for married couples when one was on the veterans pension, so the Government has, through this bill, been able to change that rate from 60 percent to 65 percent. We are very pleased to have been able to do that, because it reflects the importance and the value that Parliament and the Government place on our veterans.

The second key thing we have done is to increase the pension rate in line with a 2.72 percent rise in the consumer price index. This is important because we do not want to see the value of superannuation or the war veterans pension fall as the cost of living goes up, so by putting in this consumer price index adjuster, the real value of the war veterans pension is kept for people on that entitlement.

The bill as it is at the moment also makes some amendments surrounding the veterans pension by allowing veterans of working age who need support during rehabilitation to participate in voluntary or part-time work without losing their entire pension entitlement. The bill puts in place a very important process for that whole issue of rehabilitation for war pensioners who are hoping to move back into the work force—normally into part-time work, but sometimes, if they do want to go into full-time work, there can be some difficulties with their pension entitlement. The bill makes a big difference to people in that way. It is important that we have an individual piece of legislation that covers that. We talk about the special status that our war pensioners have. It should not just come under normal or standard law. Parliament ought to put some time aside by way of special legislation to ensure that we recognise the place they hold. That is why one of the effects of this bill is to have the war pension as something in its own right, not just as a standard social security entitlement, as something that we say is special for those New Zealanders who have served this country in time of conflict.

I would like to join with Mr Hide in acknowledging Mr Bill Gudgeon, the New Zealand First member who spoke very movingly earlier on about both his own experience and the experience of the generation that preceded him, and the sacrifice that was made by those who gave their lives. He also made the point that there was a cost to those who came home, in that they had a number of very serious physical injuries that often hampered their ability to go into full-time work, or back into work they may have been doing prior to their service to the country. So again, that reinforces the importance of the bill in recognising the special circumstances of recipients of the war pensions. It is good to have members who are able to bring that home quite clearly to other members of the House. Mine is a generation that has not had to go to war, but Mr Gudgeon’s did, and it was good to have him in the House and able to put that into all our minds so that we do not think we are debating these bills in isolation. They are part of a much wider issue, which is about protecting our older people, particularly those who are in the war pensions category.

The Social Services Committee, under the leadership of Georgina Beyer, the member for Wairarapa, delivered a fantastic report. Its members worked together very well, and the bill we see before the House is worthy of the support of all parties. Our colleagues in United Future, the Greens, ACT, the Labour-Progressive Coalition Government, and also National, have worked together, and it is a bill that deserves the honour of this Parliament.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) : I concur with the previous speaker. National will be supporting this bill, and has done right through. It is important legislation. We will commemorate Anzac Day in a couple of weeks’ time and recognise the servicemen and women who have fought around the world. We owe them a debt of gratitude. If we look around the walls of this House we see plaques commemorating the great battles that have been fought on the world scene—the Atlantic, Crete, El Alamein, and behind us here I see North Africa. If we look further up the Chamber we see plaques commemorating the First World War battles. I cannot read them all from here, but we have Egypt, Gallipoli, and the Somme. Around the walls of this debating chamber we acknowledge and recognise the sacrifices that have been made.

This bill is important because it recognises that veterans have not been fairly treated. The bill makes some logical changes by moving responsibilities for veterans pensions to the Office of Veterans Affairs. That was acknowledged by Rodney Hide, who made very strong points, with which we concur, as we concur with the comments made by Bill Gudgeon. When someone has had the experience of serving New Zealand in the theatre of war, we appreciate that contribution.

The bill recognises that military personnel are dealing with smaller skirmishes today. The skirmishes of the past—Vietnam, Korea, and the First and Second World Wars—have long gone. Today we have servicemen and women who are in more of a supervisory role with the United Nations. Today these skirmishes are much smaller, so the numbers involved in the military are fewer than in earlier years.

This bill will allow our servicemen and women to access war pensions. The entitlement has been mentioned. There will be two types of war pension—the disability pension, and when veterans reach the age of 65 they will be able to choose the superannuation scheme or to remain with the war pension scheme. As a previous National speaker has said, there is no recognition between superannuation and the war pension scheme. There may be an opportunity in the future to provide a recognition that these people have fought for New Zealand and for the freedoms that we enjoy, and that there should be recognition that they be paid more; not just the same as a superannuitant. So that is the current position, and I am not advocating today that this bill does not go far enough. There will be opportunities in the future, and that is one of the things we would certainly like to see happen.

This bill is supported by Parliament, and it is pleasing to see that all parties are supporting it. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms, and we will be acknowledging that on Anzac Day, in a couple of weeks’ time. I believe that this bill is a move in the right direction, and National has great pleasure in supporting it.

• Bill read a third time.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) : I seek leave that the debate on the Committee stage of this bill be taken as one wide-ranging debate over all parts.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will so occur.

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General), on behalf of the Minister responsible for the National Library: I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

• Motion agreed to.

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General), on behalf of the Minister of Consumer Affairs: I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

• Motion agreed to.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) : As we are all getting accustomed to now in this Chamber, after a number of years of these settlement bills coming through, the ability of anybody to change any provisions in a settlement bill is pretty limited. What sits behind bills of this kind is a deed of settlement, and of course that is what we have with this bill.

The role of Parliament and the select committee is pretty clear; it is to scrutinise the bill. I want to comment on three of the parts of the bill, and in particular on clause 13 in Part 2. Nearly all of the many submissions that the select committee heard revolved around the inclusion of Tangahoe and Pakakohi in this settlement. Clause 13 “Meaning of Ngati Ruanui” says who is part of that. It means the iwi, and so on, and every individual, etc. It also includes certain hapū, and then includes Tangahoe and Pakakohi. Just so that we are all aware, in this case these two hapū had extreme objection to their inclusion. I want to remind us all—I am sure the Minister may do so as well—that this is an important issue; it is very important to hapū. In the end, however, this settlement will proceed, with their inclusion.

We reviewed what was done, to see whether it was fair that they were included, but the committee knew that there was not a lot we could do about it. The inclusion of Pakakohi and Tangahoe has been to the Waitangi Tribunal three times in the last 2 years, and of course the tribunal traversed their inclusion, as to whether it was right and proper that they should be included. On all of those three occasions the tribunal was not prepared to recommend that the Crown change its approach, and found in favour of the settlement proceeding. There was also a challenge to the High Court, but the claims of these two hapū were rejected—there being a finding that there was no justiciable basis for there to be anything else. The committee was also privy to Cabinet papers that had traversed the issue with a lot of scrutiny.

On balance, while I guess these two hapū firmly believe that they should be treated individually and separately, in the end certain judgments have to be made, and those judgments have come out against their wishes—but well traversed. In the end members can only show that they have had the best advice, and the best material available to them to make a judgment. In my view the matter has been well traversed. Having said that, there will still be members of those hapū who will feel disaffected. None the less, clause 13 is very clear that they are included.

As I said in my second reading speech, I hope that the runanga who have the responsibility once the transfers are made and once the bill becomes law, and who will receive the settlement assets, will work very, very hard to make sure that these two hapū are indeed included, not just in word, but in action, and in the way that the settlement starts to devolve in terms of value to all those who are entitled. It is incumbent upon us at all stages of this bill to make sure that we acknowledge the submission and the entreaties of these two hapū and show that we have given them serious consideration.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) : This bill is now at the stage where I would say that the claimants are close to a mood of celebration because of the bill coming close to finality. New Zealand First has supported the bill, and still supports it at this stage so that the Ngāti Ruanui people can bring this issue to a closure.

As stated in my last presentation, I hope that those concerned have learnt from the procedures that have taken place, the need for more funding for the Waitangi Tribunal, and also that matters can be more streamlined to assist in clearing the backlog of claims waiting to be settled. I know that Ngāti Ruanui will settle their affairs amongst the hapū concerned, namely Pakakohi and Tangahoe. If members understand tikanga on the marae, people are allowed to view their own personal thoughts on subjects and topics, and those issues remain there on the marae. I am sure that Ngāti Ruanui, with their expertise and wisdom, will be able to negotiate with the two hapū concerned. I am very confident and hopeful that in time Ngāti Ruanui will, through expert advice and counsel, administer to their affairs in a pleasing and positive manner. We have learnt from history the things that have not been done right and that have gone wrong, and the repercussions that follow. I am sure that Ngāti Ruanui, with the wisdom their kaumātua have, and the leadership of their iwi, in conjunction with those who have not yet agreed, will come to some amicable agreement.

New Zealand First recommends to the Committee that the bill be fully supported, so that Ngāti Ruanui—and I am sure that some of their members are here—will go back to their hapūs and their iwis and say: “Let’s prepare now for the future.” We know that there are other bills to come and we hope that Ngāti Ruanui’s presentation and submissions will be a positive example for other claimants. [Interruption] Kia ora.

So on behalf of New Zealand First we would to add that again, and re-emphasise the things that need to be done. I must also add that not only will they have to work hard, but smarter. That is where it is. One can work hard and get nowhere, but if one is smart, one will have positive results. Tenā koutou Ngāti Ruanui. New Zealand First supports this bill.

SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) : It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this bill today as the member of Parliament for Taranaki - King Country. Obviously, that is the area that the Ngāti Ruanui iwi comes from, although I think its boundaries are slightly south of where the boundary of my electorate starts. This legislation and this process have a very long history. I suspect there are people not very far away from us right now who have had a very long journey to this point, and I welcome them and congratulate them on the efforts that they have put in. I also congratulate the Minister on finally getting the legislation to this point. This is an important process that we must go through.

I also acknowledge those who have gone before this Minister. I acknowledge the Hon Jim Bolger, and the leadership he showed with regard to bringing about the settlement of the grievances that have gone in this country now for far too long between the indigenous people and the rest of society. I congratulate the Hon Doug Graham on the work he did, despite the controversy around bringing this whole package together. I have to say that the $1 billion fiscal envelope was not the most popular decision that any Government could come up with, so I acknowledge both the Hon Jim Bolger and the Hon Doug Graham. I also acknowledge the work that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has done, and is continuing to do, on behalf of the National Party in that regard.

The issues in the various parts of this legislation should not be taken lightly. There is no question in my mind that a whole group of New Zealanders was done an injustice by previous Governments and previous majorities in this country. The research that has been done to get the Ngāti Ruanui claim to the point where the Crown has now accepted a settlement of $41 million is substantial. The research that is behind this claim, the information that we now have, and the final process that has brought us to this point are substantial, and that should not be brushed over lightly.

Various clauses in this bill highlight some of the difficulties in the process. In particular, two hapū have voiced an enormous amount of concern. During the Māori Affairs Committee process there were 44 submissions, 29 of which were opposed to the bill. In a democratic society that would suggest that this legislation should not proceed. But, given the history behind the claim and the amount of research that has brought this legislation to this point, it would be absolutely churlish for any member to stand in this Chamber at this point in time and say that because there is a group—no matter how well meaning it is—that is opposed to this legislation, we should not proceed with it. For that reason, I endorse the fact that we are now proceeding with it.

I also say to the various interjectors on the Government side of the Chamber who clearly have a view on this bill that they should take a call in order to tell us their view. Some of the people out there in society listening to the radio broadcast of these proceedings will be interested in what the Māori members of the Labour caucus have to say on this bill, particularly during the Committee stage, with regard to the two hapū that feel aggrieved because this process is proceeding, and particularly with regard to those who made submissions to the select committee. I urge those members to take a call in order to state their claim. It is unfortunate that some members of Parliament will not support this legislation going forward. It would be excellent if we could have unanimous support for something as significant as this bill. However, those members have very good reasons for that, and once again I invite the Government members to take a call and tell us why they think this bill should go ahead. I am sure that those who are opposed to it will take a call to tell us why they think it should not.

I should also say that this settlement will allow a group of people within the Taranaki area to go forward and contribute to society in a way that it has never been able to. Those people have been disadvantaged. I have grown up in that area, so I understand the grievance and the heartache. I understand that generation after generation of Ngāti Ruanui has had deep concerns about the way in which it was treated. The facts that that has never ever been acknowledged, that the Crown is now saying it accepts it has made mistakes, and that an apology has been given are in themselves very good reasons for this legislation to go ahead.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) : I endorse everything that my colleague has been saying. Obviously, he is from Taranaki. He is a good old Taranaki boy, and is probably more familiar with this issue than I am, because I am from another part of the country. Of course, our colleague Mahara Okeroa is from there, but that goes without saying. I am pleased that Shane Ardern is here in the Chamber this afternoon to add to our support for the bill.

I just want to comment on clause 15, which contains one of the extremely important provisions in any claims settlement bill. That refers to the jurisdiction of the courts and the tribunal, which are henceforth excluded from inquiring into or looking into any of the Ngāti Ruanui claims. The reason I want to make a couple of comments about it is that a lot of people outside this House—Pākehā people and some Māori—always have some anxieties. They say it is OK that we are settling a claim, but they are concerned that what will happen is that the claimants will come back to the Crown again. I would imagine that the only reason anybody would come back to the Crown again would be that a settlement was patently unfair.

If we look at the provisions of this settlement, we see that the members of the rūnanga said that while they accept that the Crown can never fully make up for the grievances they suffered, none the less there was an acceptance of the provisions of the deed of settlement. However, for the benefit of those people who might be listening to the radio broadcast of this debate in the Committee stage, I say clause 15 basically states that the settlement of the Ngāti Ruanui historical claims effected by the deed releases the Crown and discharges it from all obligations and liabilities in respect of the claims hereby settled. Henceforth no court of law can inquire into or make any findings or recommendations concerning any of Ngāti Ruanui’s historical claims, the deed of settlement, the redress provided under that deed or this legislation, and this legislation itself. Clause 16 contains similar provisions in relation to the Waitangi Tribunal.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I—

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you mispronounced the member’s name.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Mr Chairperson, I commend you for the effort you are making to pronounce my name correctly. We have been having a bit of practice at that tonight, and we will do some more of that.

I was making some comments earlier about clause 15 in Part 3. To allay the anxieties of a number of New Zealanders who say to me that they understand this is a full and final settlement but who ask what the bet is that the claimants will come back to the Crown, I said before dinner that claimants would come back to the Crown only if a settlement was not fair. In the case of Ngāti Ruanui, it has basically indicated to us that it understands that full restitution cannot be made for the losses it has suffered, but, on balance, it thinks that this settlement is something it can take and start to build a future on. I was talking earlier about the fact that henceforth the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal are excluded from jurisdiction in terms of the claims that are settled by this deed of settlement and this legislation.

The Minister may think it is worthwhile to confirm that, as well, for the benefit of those who are listening to the radio broadcast of these proceedings. As I say, it is very important that members of Parliament who support the settlement recognise the importance of giving an assurance to other New Zealanders that we have done our best to provide a settlement to these people that is fair and just in the circumstances. We will set them on a path for the future in that way, and minimise any possibility of them coming back to the Crown. In any event, that is ruled out by this legislation.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe e te Heamana. I mua i te haere tonu o tēnei tū, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou Ngāti Ruanui, nā te mea ko tēnei te wā tuatahi e tū ana au i roto i tēnei kaupapa. Nā reira, koia nei te take e mihi atu ki a koutou. He mihi hoki ki ērā o ngā whanaunga, karanga maha i hinga atu, ā, i tēnei wā ka hoki te mahara ki Maui Prime. Ko ia tētahi i whaka tīmata mai i tēnei kaupapa. Nā reira i te pō nei, kua pūawai. Nā reira, e mihi kau ana ki a rātou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman. Before I continue, special greetings to you, Ngāti Ruanui, because this is the first time I have stood up to speak on this matter. It is the reason I am greeting you now. Greetings also to those relatives and the many callings who have passed away. At this time, the mind goes to Maui Prime. He was one of the ones who started this matter. And so tonight it has blossomed. So I acknowledge them particularly.]

I will keep my comments brief. I have just acknowledged the Ngāti Ruanui representatives who are in the gallery tonight, and also those who have passed on, particularly Maui Prime, who was one of the people instrumental in initiating the whole process that has allowed this bill to come to the Committee tonight, helping Ngāti Ruanui to realise the dreams and aspirations it had when it first lodged its claim.

However, although New Zealand First supports the bill, we note in the commentary on the bill that the apology is to Ngāti Ruanui only. Previous speakers have made reference to Tangahoe and Pakakohi, who are relatives of Ngāti Ruanui. Although this bill will certainly go some way towards meeting the claims submitted by Ngāti Ruanui, I think that the Crown is placing an imposition on the tribe in this legislation, and that imposition is to deal with its Tangahoe and Pakakohi relatives. Given the number of representations made during the process that has allowed this bill to get to this stage, I believe it is now incumbent on the principals of Ngāti Ruanui to deal with their kith and kin within Tangahoe and Pakakohi as part of the settlement process. I want the Committee to realise that that imposition has been placed on Ngāti Ruanui as a consequence of this bill.

Secondly, I will comment on the amount of $41 million. I suppose that if one says it quickly enough, it does sound like a lot of money—and it is. However, I am not quite sure whether that amount will provide the settlement that Ngāti Ruanui and its various hapū deserve, given the suffering they have had to bear, as has been evidenced by history. I wonder whether the Crown has sold Ngāti Ruanui short.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I do not really wish to interrupt the speaker, but someone has a phone on. Could that person turn it off?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I heard a cellphone. There have been several instances of cellphones ringing in this Chamber, and that practice is totally unacceptable. It is discourteous to members who are speaking, and it is also an affront to the business of the House and to the Speaker. It is not necessary. The practice in select committees is for the offender to provide all members with morning tea, and if the use of cellphones were to become the practice here, the member concerned would certainly incur a hefty fine. Cellphones, when switched on, are not permitted in this Chamber. I will leave it at that.

PITA PARAONE: Perhaps the phone that was ringing belonged to one of the departed members of Ngāti Ruanui, who was calling to say that what I am saying is right, and that I should bid for more than $41 million. Although I say that in jest, I am serious about the concern I have about the amount of the settlement. I am a little disappointed that the Government member representing Ngāti Ruanui has not raised that issue.

After looking at the number of objections that were made during the process that has brought the bill to this stage, I wonder whether the Crown is leaving itself open to further litigation, and therefore to further claims, by the Tangahoe and Pakakohi hapū. They feel that a further breach of the treaty will occur if they are included in the bill under the collective definition of Ngāti Ruanui. I just caution this Committee that although we may be settling one grievance, we may be establishing another. I reiterate that the imposition we have placed on Ngāti Ruanui may come back to haunt us.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : The Greens have outlined our concerns about the treaty settlement process at some length, and we are committed to those concerns and to trying to find ways to deal with them constructively. We believe the treaty settlement process is seriously flawed, and that it causes and creates further injustice. Of particular concern to us are clauses 15 and 16 of this bill, and their reference to finalising this settlement for ever. Those clauses will prevent any further investigation, under any circumstances, by any court or organisation, into the historical claims of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi, and they will prevent for ever any reconsideration of the redress package and the concerns addressed in the bill.

The Crown itself admits that, in providing this redress, it cannot truly compensate for what was lost. It also clearly admits that the redress it provides is whatever is possible and appropriate at this particular time, at this particular place, and in these particular circumstances. So the Crown is itself aware that the redress and compensation is confined to what is possible now. But what it seeks from claimants is not a recognition of that—that this compensation is what is possible here and now—but that the claimants give up their claims for ever, as far into the future as anyone can see, and will never enter into further discussions, concerns, or investigation into this particular set of compensation. So the Crown is, essentially, establishing for itself its own rules about what it is prepared to do at this particular time, but is requiring that a different set of rules be followed by these claimants, who are prevented from ever entering into any further negotiation on these particular claims.

We consider that to be a serious issue. We consider it to be part of a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and a clear indication that the Crown is not committed to the ongoing resolution of treaty settlements and treaty claims. That provision is not about developing a long-term relationship where there is open discussion about the validity of the issues raised and the level of compensation provided. As we have raised before, the issues raised in terms of clauses 15 and 16 are particularly important for Tangahoe and Pakakohi, because they will never be able to come back and have another look at this legislation and readdress the issues that they have raised very seriously through the courts and in the Māori Affairs Committee. For them, these clauses essentially legislate them out of existence—legislate away their rights as Māori under the treaty to be able to get the redress that they believe is imperative for them.

So the Greens consider the effect of this legislation to be extremely serious for Tangahoe and Pakakohi, and to that end we have put forward amendments to delete clauses 15 and 16 of the bill. We are aware of the constraints on amendments to the bill, particularly as it is a treaty settlement bill, and we are aware that those amendments may not go any further than the Committee stage. But we have put them forward out of respect to Tangahoe and Pakakohi, out of recognition that these claims are not in any sense final but will continue to live on because this process creates a further injustice that must, and will, be dealt with in the future, and out of recognition that these clauses are a complete anathema to the passing of good legislation in this Chamber. It is important for us to stake a claim now, in order to make it clear that this Parliament recognises and understands the importance of what it is doing in legislating away these people’s rights into the future and preventing them from ever being able to reconsider the compensation—compensation that the Crown accepts is acceptable only in so far as its resources are currently available. It is important to recognise as well, for the benefit of those people who will look back on this debate and want to see what we were thinking at the time, that we do understand the consequences of legislating a settlement that will be closed off to future generations.

I urge members to support the amendments to the bill. We will certainly be voting in favour of them. We will vote for the bill regardless of whether those amendments go through, out of respect for Ngāti Ruanui. But as an indication of the importance of understanding and acknowledging the injustice that those clauses will cause, we strongly urge members to vote to delete them from the bill.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) : I was not thinking of participating in this Committee stage, but I do so to say that the ACT party most certainly will not support the Greens’ suggestions that this is not a full and final settlement. I tell the previous National speaker that it is a fond hope that it is a full and final settlement. The reason I say that is that for parts of the land involved, this is the fourth settlement. I know it is fashionable to say that our predecessors never tried to settle anything. That is just not true. Parliament itself passed settlement Acts that, in today’s dollars, were more generous than what we are doing today. Three different commissions have been involved—two in the 1880s, and one, the Sim Commission, in the 1820s. If members read the reports of those commissions, they will find they are a great deal better than those of the Waitangi Tribunal, which has that caused a great deal of offence by rewriting history and describing things as a holocaust. Well, it is regrettable. What happened was wrong, but it was not a holocaust. In that sense, I tell the member from the Green Party that I think the bulk of New Zealanders, both Māori and non-Māori, do want to settle Waitangi claims. They do want to put those things—to use Helen Clark’s favourite phrase—behind us and move on. In doing so, the ACT party supports this bill, even though it has some reservations about the process that has been gone through. We too would like to see reconciliation in Taranaki.

It is regrettable that the Minister has not taken a call to assure the Committee that, in fact, the settlement is fair, and that those Māori groups that have complained have been treated correctly. I was not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but I would have expected the Minister, on an important treaty claim, to address those issues and answer them. I notice that the Greens put in a minority report on that matter, then basically did not speak to it.

Hon Member: Yes we did.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: No, the Greens did not speak to the question of whether they thought the objections being raised by hapū in Taranaki do have merit. In fact, what the Greens appear to me to be saying is the worst sort of politics. They just wave a green flag at it without making a decision one way or another. I tell the Minister that I am relying on the committee and the Crown to have acted properly, because my party was not represented on the select committee. I would like to hear an assurance from the Minister, in this Committee, that this is a fair settlement, a full settlement, and a final settlement.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : I have a lot of difficulty in understanding the Greens’ position. It seems to me that I hear a lot of problems from them and not too much in the way of solutions. The question is: how long do we as a nation—that is, Māori as well as non-Māori—really want the treaty settlement process to continue? How long do we want to keep on debating treaty grievances before we move on as a nation, having put that part of our history behind us once and for all? I find extreme difficulty with the proposed amendment that would make the settlement not a full and final settlement. That simply says for us to give them some money now and, in fact, invite them to come back again and ask for more. I think it is in everybody’s interests that we to try to get these proceedings out of the way, get a resolution, resolve the issues, and move on.

I am aware that there were concerns from Tangahoe and Pakakohi in terms of their legitimate representation. It appears that, in all those grievances, there will always be a minority view that does not agree with the way the settlement is going to go. In fact, in this settlement we have one of the highest proportions of agreement: 87.8 percent of the people, including Tangahoe and Pakakohi, agreed to the settlement process; 94 percent ratified. It seems to me that we will not get any better than that. To suggest that, because there is a small minority—and numerically, on those figures, it has to be a very small minority—that is not comfortable with the settlement, we should therefore allow relitigation of issues by that minority, or, in fact, as the Greens would have it, by anybody in Ngāti Ruanui at some future stage, is simply ridiculous. We need to have a balance. I am also aware of the arguments as to whether it is iwi or hapū that should be negotiated with. The Crown has mandated, and there are questions as to whether the Crown should unilaterally mandate and define the groups that will be the negotiating parties as iwi groups or as large natural groups, but in practical terms, that is probably the one direction in which we can go, if we want to try to get the issue resolved.

My major objection is that, despite the need for robust settlements, and for full and final settlements, the Government is still moving far too slowly in terms of this resolution. It proudly says it will achieve two settlements a year, on average. That is simply not good enough. We need to be moving much faster than that. We as a nation need to get to a position where those things are finished and behind us. On the basis of a prediction of about 50 claims to go, if we speed up the process—and that is simply a question of resources available to the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements—we could, by my calculations, get the whole matter finished by 2015. Then we could have a finite date by which we could say we have finally got these issues behind us, that Māori have the assets and the potential to be financially self-sufficient in order to move on and have accepted apologies freely given, that there has been cultural redress—which I am pleased to see, particularly in the form of the protocols in this bill—that there has been material restitution, and that all parties are, as far as can be conceivably expected, happy with the result. We could say that that was behind us and we had coloured in the whole country in terms of the processes of the Office of Treaty Settlements. We could then look forward to a relationship into the future and focus on where we go to from here.

I am concerned about the issue of where we go to from here, because I simply do not see any sense of vision by this Government in terms of where the relationships between Māori and non-Māori will be in 10, 15, or 20 years’ time. What does the Government see those as being? We continually get an almost schizophrenic approach to Māori issues, which comes from a lack of a sense of moving in any consistent sort of direction. We get an approach that, on some issues, means we try to get resolution and reconciliation and we try to set up a framework that moves us forward together, and the next thing is that the Government turns round and does things are simply divisive.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 15 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There has been a discussion amongst the other whips, and it has been agreed that we deal with these clauses in the same way as the previous bill. I seek leave for the debate on the clause to be one wide-ranging debate, with the questions being put at the end of that debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are actually debating clauses 1 to 41 and the schedules. I thought we had just agreed on a wide-ranging debate over all the parts and the schedules.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) : It is with great interest that I stand on behalf of the National Party to speak in favour of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill. We would like, for once, to commend the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, for the work she has done on this bill, but—not to go too far—we still have a few questions. Sometimes we have to give credit where credit is due. I have done a lot of work on broadcasting with the Minister, and sometimes one has to say a kind word or two. I thank her. However, in terms of the bill, I do have a few questions and concerns.

First, why do we need this legislation at all? We have a perfectly good National Library Act, enacted in 1965, that has done an extremely good job for the last 38 years. Passing bills in this House is a very expensive task. The Parliamentary Library tells me that it can cost anywhere from between $300,000 and $800,000 to pass a bill, so we should not pass bills just to make ourselves feel good. I question the reasons behind the Government wanting to pass this one. I suspect it has a lot to do with wanting to do symbolic things to make the arts community feel good. Having looked at this bill of some 29 pages, I cannot see any legitimate reason that we should be spending time on it tonight.

Things have changed quite dramatically since 1965. Technology has changed. In 1965 some members were not even born. There were no fax machines, no colour television, and certainly no video.

Simon Power: Ray Columbus was popular.

KATHERINE RICH: I thank Mr Power. Ray Columbus was popular. We did not have the Internet. A lot of the changes to the publishing world have been made since that time and a lot of the bits and pieces that need to be protected within the National Library need to be incorporated within the Act. However, we could have done that with an amendment. We did not need a whole new bill.

I ask the Minister why we are going through this process of establishing a totally new bill and repealing the old Act. I would like her to explain why this is nothing more than perhaps some artistic symbolism and some feel-good legislation. A few excuses were dreamt up about why this bill needed to be put through. The first one was to clarify the role of the Alexander Turnbull Library. It is a very important part of the library, with a very important collection. I say “important”, but I mean important to the New Zealand culture and the heritage of this country. But, once again, we did not really need another bill to tell us how important it was. The Alexander Turnbull Library sits there in the middle of the National Library, its premises quite separate from the rest of the complex. We do not need a bill to go as far as clarifying the role further.

The second excuse was to clarify the role of the chief librarian, which, some would have us believe, seems to be one of the most political jobs in Wellington. However, once again, no real change is necessary. This bill will introduce a whole new range of problems. For example, it includes the word “taonga”. This whole country has had a huge problem in defining what that word means in the treaty. So in terms of including it in further legislation, when the whole country is not quite sure what the exact meaning of it is right now, I certainly have concerns about that.

The next point I would like to raise is the extended coverage of legal deposit. If we look at what this bill covers, we will see that it covers all sorts of things that now need to be deposited with the National Library. Almanacs, annual reports, books, pamphlets—for some reason press releases are not included—newsletters, and web pages will be captured. Certainly, those people involved in the computer industry are very concerned. They are unclear what will be required of them in offering some of their materials to the National Library, and, of course, technology changes. Years ago, in the 1980s, I remember using WordStar as a file format. These days we would be lucky to find a computer able to read that. These sorts of technological changes have an impact on how we preserve parts of our heritage.

Another quite interesting point is that under the Supplementary Order Paper the words “art print” have been removed. I wonder whether that is because there may have been a general concern that the works of Ralph Hotere, Stanley Palmer, Grahame Sydney, or a number of people who specialise in prints were going to have to put their works into the National Library.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) : Mr Chairman—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Good to see you!

SIMON POWER: I thank the Minister; it is good to be here. I was transferred on to the Education and Science Committee part-way through the hearings of evidence and the work that had been done on the bill. I have to confess that when the matter came up on the select committee business agenda I perhaps did not initially take this bill as seriously as I should have. However, when I sat and listened to some of the evidence—

John Carter: Really!

SIMON POWER: This is quite an important point, on what is quite an interesting bill. When the evidence came before the select committee, and the officials came and spent some time going through the bill with us, it became apparent to me that it was an important wee piece of legislation. As we worked through a series of questions with the officials about how the legal depositing would work, how modern Internet would be dealt with—particularly, from my point of view, from a copyright perspective—and how the National Library would control the rights that connect to electronic data that was to be stored by the National Library, I found the whole thing, surprisingly, quite fascinating.

My colleague Katherine Rich outlined some of the initial views that she had on the bill. Some of those did not resonate with me as much as the issues that relate to legal deposit. There was a whole range of submissions supporting the extension of that deposit to cover electronic publications. At first glance that might seem like a pretty standard, uninteresting thing to say. In fact it is an extremely difficult thing to do, not only in terms of gathering and maintaining that information, not only in terms of the copyright and the legal issues that surround who owns that information, but also in the way in which Internet and electronic information can change so quickly. The question for the officials was: “How do we capture a moment in time of that electronic information, then commit it to our records to represent that precise moment of information?” It might sound like a bizarre concept, but when we talked it through with the officials, one thing that became absolutely clear was that this is not a straightforward business.

My colleague Katherine Rich made the comment that in some places this bill may be unnecessary and perhaps a little repetitive in terms of the practical things that exist. The classic example of that—and I remember questioning the officials on this—was clause 13(1): “There is an office of chief librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library.” To my way of thinking, why do we have that in legislation? If there is a chief librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library, that is great, and that person should be left to just get on with the job. However, it was explained to me that it was not that straightforward, and that I needed to consider other issues about the relationship that that chief librarian had in relation to the chief librarian of the National Library and other officers who worked in the National Library.

However, I return to what I initially set out to talk about—that is, the issue of storing information in an electronic form. Seeing as we have a wide-ranging debate, the Minister, the Hon Marian Hobbs, is in the chair, and it seems as though an agreement has been reached to let the Committee rise early once everybody has had a say on this issue, I would not mind if the Minister would take a call to give us a bit of view on how the policy process works through that storage, at one point in time, of any of that information. One thing is for sure, that cannot have been a straightforward process. What does one do if a website shows information one day, the National Library decides it will store the information as at that date, and then the information changes in 24 hours, which it does? At which point should the library collect that electronic information, at which point is the library able to make a decision as to when that information should be deposited, and at which point does it determine when that information is most important? That cannot be an easy problem for the National Library, and I wish it well.

HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) : I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of this bill. The two previous speakers made some very good points. When Katherine Rich asked whether this was a feel-good bill, she did, indeed, raise a very valid point. I agree with her that an amendment would have been quite sufficient. We should feel duty-bound to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. How much was it that a bill costs?

Hon Member: Between $300,000 and $800,000.

HEATHER ROY: That is a lot of health care. However, here we have the bill and the ACT party supports it. As Mr Power said, we have some concerns on the issue of legal deposit for electronic material. I will be putting forward an amendment to ask that the term “restriction” in the interpretation contained in clause 28 should have the following added to it: “means recognition of legal restrictions that already may exist for material on Internet sites.” The reason I want to put this amendment, or addition to the clause, forward is that I have some concerns with clause 30C(4), which allows the National Library to make content harvested from public websites such as stuff.co.nz, or newzealandherald.co.nz, available via the Internet. There are two implications from that. The first is that the viability of some publishers of commercial news archives may well be threatened. I would welcome the Minister taking a call and assuring the Committee that that is not the intention of that provision. I am sure that it is not, but it would be good to know that was not the case. Many of those organisations survive because they are able to sell their information, and it is essential that when the library is asked for that information to be given out, the information will be still protected.

Another concern I have is the requirement for the National Library to gain agreement from affected publishers prior to the library making material available via the Internet. It is legally protected at the moment, so not everybody can go in and get the information that members of those publishing organisations have paid considerable amounts of money to be able to access. I think that is a very important point.

So ACT will be supporting this bill. I would welcome everybody having a look at the amendment I have put forward, and I ask that they consider it seriously, and support it.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) : I am absolutely delighted to be able to speak on this National Library of New Zealand Bill, otherwise known as Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa Bill. In saying that, I know that it is usual to say something about the title. There was considerable discussion and submission on the title itself. Indeed—

Sandra Goudie: There’s an amendment from me.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Apparently there’s a an amendment, but, as I say, there was considerable submission and discussion on it, and concern that there may be a degree of tokenism in the way that Māoridom is being treated in this bill—concern that there is a lack of sensitivity. Nevertheless, it is important that there are two names, and I am certainly very happy about that because the library is such an icon, and because it celebrates all New Zealanders’ archives. Even now, I see just in front of me one of my colleagues who is concerned about that aspect.

National did not support the first reading of this bill, but, due to the parliamentary process working well and the various parties working cooperatively, a consensus was arrived at over some pretty tricky issues. One of them was the area of legal deposit and the commercial problems associated with it. The other concerned the area of the oral archives, and I would like to speak to that, for a moment or two.

For some decades oral archives were being collected in New Zealand, particularly in relation to our Prime Ministers and Governors-General. I am aware that the former Governor-General, Mr Hardie Boys, was deeply concerned that the oral histories he was involved with during the MMP era would not be available. The difficulty was that under the Official Information Act there was a possibility that anything said by a Minister or the Governor-General could be available—hence even their private recollections would be available—and many of them did not want that to happen. However, through the mechanism in clause 10, we now have an explicit provision so that the wonderful collection started off by Hugo Manson and Judith Fyfe can be recommenced.

Clause 10(2) states: “If an oral history has been provided to the National Library by a person on conditions (for example, conditions relating to access to the information) that have been agreed to in writing by, or on behalf of, the National Librarian, the Crown and its agents … must comply with those conditions.” Clause 10(3) goes on to state: “This section—(a) applies whether or not the oral history was created or acquired by, or on behalf of, the Crown; and (b) does not limit the Archives Act 1957.” The effect of that is that those very valuable oral histories will be able to be recommenced. That is a great achievement for the future.

I must say that during the submissions to the bill I was deeply impressed by the incredibly sincere and extremely conscientious views aired by the submitters. There is something about librarians—and I think there might be a few up in the gallery tonight—but I certainly pay tribute to their extraordinary zeal towards this wonderful institute, the National Library. It was a great learning exercise to have their contributions.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : Members are aware that the Hon Brian Donnelly chaired the Education and Science Committee, and that New Zealand First has supported this bill in its first and second readings, and, now, in its Committee stage.

Just very quickly and rather than prolong the debate, I say that this is quite a significant bill, for another reason. I am used to looking at bills that mention the Treaty of Waitangi, and, somehow, their purpose clauses go down a particular track. New Zealand First often finds it difficult to distinguish why and how legal language and terminology can go down that path. But this bill has a sensible purpose clause. Firstly, it picks up the reality, which is the historical heritage of our country. It puts that into a concise form, and recognises that heritage is not just for Māori, but it is for all of us. I think that is quite a significant issue in this clause.

Secondly, I am very pleased to see that it picks up the oral history, which is part of the university of this town and part of a development that has been interesting, and ought to be more so. It is a very easy and concise way of preserving part of our heritage, in a way that is easier to put together than is the more traditional writing and so on that we normally accept in historical scholarship.

Thirdly, I want to add one other matter. I understand there was some concern—and I would wish the Minister, if she were to take a call, to clarify the one issue outstanding—about the state of information received electronically, with regard to its republication.

The only issue of some contention to us as a caucus is the status under this bill of electronic material stored and republished. I do not think that issue has been quite clarified. I have searched through the language, and it is not clear to me. That would be the only quibble we would ask the Minister to clarify. New Zealand First supports the further passage of this bill.

SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) : I would like to reiterate National’s full support for the National Library and for the Alexander Turnbull Library, and acknowledge their wonderful contribution as repositories of our history, and as collectors of what will be our history in all the materials they put out.

I would like to cover one or two aspects of the bill that I have noticed on a first reading, because I have not been very familiar with it. I have put an amendment forward on the title of the bill. The title is the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill, and my amendment excludes the Māori words, for a very good reason—the reason of cost. When one is looking to use words in titles and on letterheads, there is a compliance cost that goes with that. There is no compliance cost with this bill, but there is a compliance cost from this bill, not just for the private sector but also for taxpayers through the public sector. So I think it is absolutely sufficient to entitle the bill the “National Library of New Zealand Bill”. The “National Library” means it is for the nation, for the peoples of the nation, and for the peoples of New Zealand. So the title “National Library of New Zealand Bill” is absolutely appropriate. If further thought were given to the cost of having all those words in the current title, there would be some reconsideration given to this. There is no compliance cost report attached to this bill, and this is the second bill I have had to speak on in as many weeks, that has not had a compliance cost report. That is a serious oversight on the part of this Government, and a measure of its lack of fiscal capability in that regard.

I point out another couple of areas that could have been considered in a compliance cost report. Firstly, there is the provision of guardians, or kaitiaki, as inserted in the bill; and, secondly, there is the provision for a commission, as well as other advisory bodies. I struggle to understand why it is necessary to have a committee called “Guardians”, as well as a commission, and then supplement that with a number of advisory bodies. There is a considerable cost attached, and I would have thought that needed to be assessed as to whether it is absolutely justified, when perhaps just the commission is necessary in providing any advice sought and in working with the National Librarian of the National Library, who is also responsible for the rest of the functions of the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library. I would have thought that the responsibility of the chief librarian should be left with the chief librarian, and perhaps not taken away, by means of a committee of guardians, but instead left to the commission. I would have thought it was not necessary to have any other advisory bodies, whereby there is no control over how many of them are going to be considered.

I support my learned colleague Paul Hutchison in his recognition of the great importance of oral histories. It is good to see that provision, and that those histories are subject to the Archives Act.

However, it makes no recognition, other than that the Act provides for the Minister to have discretion as to when these oral histories will be released. But it is difficult to know when they will be released, given that conditions may be imposed by the person lodging those histories.

I turn now to subpart 3 of Part 2, “Guardians of Alexander Turnbull Library”, which provides that the Minister of Māori Affairs must be consulted in the appointment of guardians. I do not see any justification or reasoning for that necessity. It is a duplication of process and more bureaucratic overlay, without just cause. I think that provision should be deleted, but I have not got around to putting in an amendment. However, I am sure I will if I get the opportunity.

I refer now to the interpretation of Internet documents, and the collection of information. We have seen a huge plethora of information, since the definition has been broadened.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for the National Library) : I want to respond to a couple of queries that have been raised. I refer firstly to part of the title being in te reo Māori. Those words are not just an addition; this is the name that was given to the library in 1987. It is already on all our publications and papers, so to take it out would be a cost. That would really affect it, so it is not about saving money. Some people did think that using Māori terms and a Māori name in the title was a bit of icing on the cake. In fact, it is significant that the library has been working very hard in recent years with Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Kahungunu, and Ngāti Toa, and with their records and history, incorporating them, and using them in the library.

Secondly, I want to talk about Heather Roy’s amendment about selling electronic information. Yes, the newspaper publishers did voice concerns to the select committee. Can I make it very clear that the amendments in the select committee strengthened the situation. There must be consultation with affected publishers before any materials, electronic or otherwise, not already collected are required, and this consultation includes terms of conditions and public access. Those publishers were concerned that we would take “Stuff” in, literally, and publish it the same day. No, that is not so.

Thirdly, I turn to the question raised by the speaker who referred to a “snapshot of electronic data”. Many things that are kept in Alexander Turnbull Library are snapshots, literally. They are photos. They are not necessarily photos that say they are true, because anyone can doctor a photo. When one takes a snapshot with electronic data, what might be on somebody’s website is true for that day, but it may not be true for the next day. That is the nature of historical collections. I thank members for their support for this bill. There has been a tremendous amount of work from a community of people.

One member said: “Why are we bringing the bill in? Why don’t we just amend the Act?”. I think some people were not aware of the discord in the community over a number of years, and of the work done outside this Chamber by people like Lydia Weavers—who I see in the gallery—by the library staff and community, and by the Friends of the Turnbull Library to heal the wounds of a divided library community. That is why this has been done.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I reiterate United Future’s support for the bill, but want briefly to address the words in the title, “National Library”. When speaking in the second reading debate, my colleague Bernie Ogilvy expressed the concern of our party that the National Library is becoming the “library of last resort”. When most people want to access a library they go to their local public library or to an institutional library to which they are affiliated. Thus, most people’s physical perception of a library is grounded in their own local area. Moreover, the total budgets and resources of these local libraries far outstrip those of the National Library, and these libraries make their own decisions on how their funds should be used. Perhaps, on both counts, that is as it should be. It would be disastrous to maintain an oversized National Library in Wellington at the expense of those libraries in the rest of New Zealand, and, I could add, also at the expense of the general taxpayer. However, I think there has been a perception in the past that the National Library should fill a kind of “mother of all libraries” role. That ignores the reality of the electronic age, because libraries across the country can access both national and international information at a keystroke.

So how will the National Library remain a national library, in that sense? One issue is covered in the bill, whereby the requirement of “legal deposit” is extended to electronic documents. Although United Future has its doubts about the feasibility of that task, we recognise that for those who live in the far-flung regions of this country, beyond practical access to local libraries, resources such as a national database of electronic and non-electronic documents, accessible via the Internet, have the potential to be incredibly valuable. Once again, that database could be viewed as an information source of last resort, but the right of access to a library for people in those circumstances should be equal to the right of any other citizen. To this extent, it is still a national library.

But, to avoid being viewed as a default library, the National Library of New Zealand also needs to reinvent itself. It is the only place where all New Zealand publications may be found—something that is endorsed in this bill. Yet we should not come to treat it as a place where treasures are contained, but never see the light of day. The cornucopia could easily become a mausoleum. That was the tenor of some of the submissions regarding the clarification of the relationship between the Alexander Turnbull Library and the National Library, and some submitters were concerned that access to rare and historical material would be restricted. The bill ensures that the holdings of the Alexander Turnbull Library are secure and able to be loaned—provisions that are welcomed.

But the general issue remains. For it to be a true national library, as the title of the bill affirms, there needs to be a much greater effort to share the treasures inside with the rest of the country. That is the real challenge facing the National Library, but perhaps it is one that goes beyond the relatively constrained parameters of this bill.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) : I am glad to take a second call in this debate. Because it is a wide-ranging debate, I would like to take the opportunity to thank those members of the National Library staff who have been involved in taking the bill this far, and, once again, to pay tribute to Lydia Weavers. I was a trustee on the National Library for a period of time and I saw at first hand the skill and dedication of Lydia Weavers and the meticulous approach she took to ensuring that the Alexander Turnbull Library and the trustees could put their best foot forward. I suppose that part of her work was planning the demise of the trustees—as they will now be broken into the guardians and the commission—but I think she needs to be recognised for a job well done.

I still have a few questions remaining about this bill, which the Minister has not covered. I do not think she has quite covered the issue of how different formats will be dealt with when it comes to dealing with a wide range of electronic media. The materials that will perhaps come from the 1980s, from the 1990s, and from more recently, will have to be stored in such a way they can be retrieved easily. In my last speech I gave an example of some of the files we used when the use of computers was becoming widespread in the 1980s. Some of those documents we wrote at the time would not be accessible these days unless we had the software, the machinery, and the whole bit, in order to be able to retrieve that information.

It is good to see a number of members taking calls on this bill. Although the bill seems quite technical in nature, it really highlights the importance of the National Library. When I first became a member in 1999 I was very lucky to be given the spokesmanship for the National Library. One of the first things I did was go to the National Library and take a tour. That was an absolute eye-opener, and, in a way, I think I became a born-again National Library convert. The library staff arranged quite a creative tour. They showed me a lot of things that I suspect they knew I would have an interest in, so I looked at old music memorabilia, posters, old political pamphlets—you name it. It was quite amazing to see what is kept in the Alexander Turnbull Library, as well as in the National Library as a whole.

I think it is a good reminder to all of us that the whole point of keeping documents and parts of our heritage is not so much keeping them for their own sake. They are kept so that they can be enjoyed by the entire New Zealand community, so that they can be used as the basis for research, and so that following generations will be able to learn a little bit about the generations that have gone before. That is why we keep the memorabilia, old copies of the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly, and all sorts of things that document different parts of our heritage.

But, in keeping that material, it is important to be able to disseminate it, and to use and spread knowledge of that material throughout the community. One of the things that did concern me when I first looked at the bill was clause 11(3), which states: “Except to the extent provided by section 14A, the collections of the Alexander Turnbull Library must remain in the custody of the National Library at all times.” The unintended consequence of that clause was to ensure that nothing could leave the library—ever.

I think one of the good things about the library is that materials can be drawn from its collections and used in other presentations and exhibitions, for example, Sophie Jerram’s Posted Love exhibition. Ms Jerram took a whole range of love letters from the last 100 or so years and put them all together in an exhibition that travelled up and down the country. It came to Dunedin. I am glad to see that the select committee realised that clause 11, as it was, would be overly restrictive. It would not allow those sorts of exhibitions to travel. The Jack Lovelock exhibition was another one that would not have been able to travel had all the materials been kept within just the Alexander Turnbull Library and the National Library at all times.

I am interested in the role of the guardians. I am not 100 percent sure what their role will be. In the way they are described in this bill they sound a bit like glamorised security guards and protectors of the collections. I would like to see a better explanation of what is expected of them, and what they will be doing in terms of their protection of the Alexander Turnbull Library. The reason for that, of course, is to be able to measure what they do and to be able to judge whether parts of the bill have been put in place correctly.

I also make that point about the commission. I think there needs to be a clearer definition of its role so that all people involved in the library, and the public at large, can be aware that things are being done well.

Once again, I say that this is an important bill. Although sometimes people look upon libraries as not being as exciting as they should be, when we get in amongst them we find they are a repository of knowledge. They are exciting places. The National Library is particularly exciting when we go in and see a lot of the photos, posters, and snapshots of the past. I think there is an opportunity for us to begin to understand a lot about ourselves as people of a country, and about the generations that have gone before. I think it is timely that electronic aspects have been brought into the bill. I have some concerns about formatting and storage, and I am a bit unsure about what exactly will be collected, because by the way this bill reads, everything from Wayne Mapp’s newsletter down to the National Party’s web page will be captured.

Hon Tony Ryall: That’s not going to be stored in the National Library, is it?

KATHERINE RICH: Absolutely! Technically, according to this bill, Wayne Mapp is a printer and publisher, and he will have to forward his newsletter.

Hon Tony Ryall: What about Collins Comments?

KATHERINE RICH: That goes for Collins Comments, and also for . I think the worldwide headquarters of will be appalled to know that its newsletter will have to be submitted on a weekly basis, for the purpose of preserving the heritage of this country.

Once again, I thank the staff of the National Library. I will leave it there, except to say that National will be supporting this bill.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) : I was very interested to hear my colleague talk about those pinnacles of English literature—Collins Comments and etc. However, I want to concentrate again on clause 30 and the area of legal deposit, because it was that area that we as a party were very concerned about before the bill went to the House, then to the select committee, and under the very good interparty collaboration in the select committee, emerged triumphantly. I just wanted to make the point that it was only in December last year that the stated that under New Zealand legal deposit rules, publishers already had to provide the library with three copies of any book they published, free of charge. The article said that the National Library Bill was set to extend that obligation to cover any type of CD Rom, video, or other electronic media listed by the Minister, and that the National Library would be free to automatically harvest what it wanted from the web. What a great term “harvest” is. The permutations and combinations associated with that term, and the changes in technology, are absolutely limitless.

The article went on to state that the National Library had become increasingly strident in its efforts to avoid irrelevance in the face of an explosion of online information, and was also set to win the right to convert deposited books into electronic form. It then went on to say that the Newspaper Publishers Association had said that the bill gave the responsible Minister too much discretion to decide what was and what was not a public document, and could impose significant costs on publishers. The Minister, Marian Hobbs, is in the chair, and I would ask her to elucidate a few aspects of that issue.

Interestingly, the reply from the Chief Librarian to that article was fairly succinct, and she put our concerns to rest. [Interruption] No, she did not use those terms, Mr Carter. She said: “The bill gives the National Library the ability to harvest and make available web content that is already accessible without restrictions. However, the National Library would protect the commercial interests of publishers.” That is absolutely vital. Web content that generates revenue—for example, a searchable database and other subscriber-based services, would be made publicly available only if publishers agreed. That is utterly key. I would certainly like the Minister to just take a small call to assure the Committee that that aspect is absolutely watertight, because nothing would be worse than finding in the future that those commercial interests were lost.

The Chief Librarian then went on to say: “It is incorrect to say that the library is set to win the right to convert deposited books into electronic format. Books that the library receives in hard copy format can’t be converted into electronic format, except under the terms of the Copyright Act 1994. The National Library bill proposes no change to that.” So might the Minister be able to tell us that that is absolutely watertight?

The other point I want to make is that in clause 30(3) there is something that gives me a bit of trepidation. It says: “The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, authorise the National Librarian to make a copy, at any time or times and at his or her discretion, of public documents that are internet documents in accordance with any terms and conditions as to format, public access, or other matters that are specified in the notice.” That provision really gives the Minister carte blanche. She may authorise the gazetting of anything that takes her fancy.

To my mind, one of the greatest worries about the Internet today is deciphering quality from the absolutely unmitigated conglomeration of explosive verbiage that comes across it. It requires huge skills of discrimination. Again, I would like the Minister to take a call and absolutely assure the Committee that successive Ministers are likely to be discriminating in terms of that particular clause, because it gives a Minister huge possibilities and licence.

I want to end by just saying that this is indeed a great moment in terms of celebrating a very important New Zealand institution—the National Library of New Zealand.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Heather Roy to clause 28 be agreed to:

to amend subclause (1) by adding to the definition of restriction the following paragraph:

(c)means recognition of legal restrictions that already may exist for material on internet sites.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) : I move, That the Committee report progress.

• Motion agreed to.