Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I move, That the NgātiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. I stand to acknowledge the significance of this day for the people of NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, and especially for those who have travelled here to join us in the House for this very important occasion. Sadly, some of those who began the long task of settling these claims are no longer with us, and I take this opportunity to acknowledge them and their contribution.

The passage of this bill will make a significant contribution towards the goal of promoting harmony between the peoples of this country, in two ways. Firstly, it will provide tangible and intangible redress to NgātiTūwharetoa in the settlement of their claims, allowing them to rebuild their economic base and shift the focus from addressing grievances to developing and building the future. Secondly, it will restore the honour of the Crown. All New Zealanders want a Government that is fair to its citizens—one that recognises when Governments have made mistakes in the past. Making amends is at the heart of being fair. This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, and settles all their historical treaty claims. Those grievances are at the serious end of the scale.

NgātiTūwharetoa were faithful to the spirit of the treaty partnership and sought to build strong relationships with the Crown. But the Crown did not treat them fairly in return. This bill contains a formal apology to NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown.

NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty began direct negotiations with the Crown back in 1998. The main components of the settlement package were agreed in February 2001, and a deed of settlement was initialled by negotiators in October 2002. A significant majority of iwi participated in a postal ballot to confirm their support for the settlement. Accordingly, representatives of the Crown and NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty signed a deed of settlement at Parliament on 6 June 2003. The passage of this settlement bill is the final hurdle to enable the Crown to transfer the settlement redress to NgātiTūwharetoa.

The historical treaty claims of NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty relate mainly to the confiscation of land in the bay in the 1860s and to the damaging effect the confiscation had on their welfare, economy, and long-term development. The claims also relate to the loss of control of and access to geothermal energy and to the pollution of the Tarawera River. NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty are based around Kawerau and Matatā. NgātiTūwharetoa are of the Arawa waka, and are descended from the ancestor Tūwharetoa, who lived in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

The NgātiTūwharetoa people located in the Bay of Plenty are distinct from the whanaunga around Taupō Moana. Although many descendants of Tūwharetoa migrated south and settled around the Taupō area, others stayed in the Kawerau and Matatā areas and have their own separate and distinct identity. NgātiTūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty have also been closely interlinked and have a shared history with their neighbours, Ngāti Awa. They share an interest in some of the same sites around the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

It can be difficult for the Crown to negotiate separate settlements in such circumstances, but in this instance it was clearly the right thing to do. In 1999, shortly after negotiations began, the Waitangi Tribunal confirmed that Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, as they were then known, were entitled to stand alone in any settlement, with their distinct lineage and identity properly acknowledged.

This is the second claims settlement bill to be passed through the House this year, and it will probably not be the last. The additional effort this Government has put into settling treaty claims is paying off. This year is likely to see at least three claims settlement bills passed—more than ever before in a single year. I want to acknowledge the support of many members around the House in making that possible.

This legislation will move NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty beyond the stage of lodging historical claims at the Waitangi Tribunal or in the courts. In this sense they will join Waikato-Tainui with respect to their raupatu claims, as well as NgāiTahu, NgātiTūrangituku, Pouakani, Te Uri o Hau, NgātiRuanui, Ngāti Tama, and Ngāti Awa. These groups have all been through the negotiation process, and have agreed that they can no longer lodge further historical claims. At the same time, others have been exercising their rights, as Māori, to register historical claims. There are hundreds of registered historical claims now.

The Waitangi Tribunal has already produced significant bodies of research at a general level, as well as examining the detail in its district inquiries. I do not believe that 20 years after historical claims were first lodged there are many remaining issues still to be brought to the Crown’s notice through the Waitangi Tribunal. The time is coming soon when we must all increasingly shift our focus from the gathering together and presenting of historical grievances, to resolving them in either a tribunal inquiry or by direct negotiations. As NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty know, lodging a claim is only the beginning of the process, and long years of work have been put in by the Waitangi Tribunal, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and especially NgātiTūwharetoa themselves to reach the end of the settlement process we are all achieving today. It is important that hearings and negotiations be resourced sufficiently to proceed apace, but not constrained by any artificial deadlines. Settlements should be done once, and done right.

I am pleased to acknowledge all those in NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, and the Crown, who have worked towards making this day possible. In particular I acknowledge BevAdlam, the chief negotiator for the settlement. Bev’s leadership and determination over past years has steered the claim through some challenging times. I would particularly like to acknowledge the dedication and goodwill that Bev has demonstrated to ensure that this bill has proceeded smoothly, and is able to proceed today through the House. I also acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Margaret Wilson, for her fortitude and leadership in seeking the resolution of NgātiTūwharetoa’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Finance, the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotitations, and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the contributions of the first Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the first Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to the early stage of the negotiations.

I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty deed of settlement. Stories such as these are scars on our collective history, but remembering them is vital to understanding the relationship between the tangata whenua of this country and those whose ancestors arrived here later. We must know our history if we are to truly learn from its lessons. Only then are we able to build our nation’s future together, on the foundation of those lessons. I wish all the best for the future to NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. They will shortly begin the critical task of managing their settlement assets. I am confident that they will do so with the judgment, tenacity, and commitment they have showed throughout the settlement process. I look forward to witnessing their future endeavours. Kia ora tātou. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : Mai Maketū ki Tongariro ki takuwhānau o Te Moana a Toi Te Huatahikua tae mai ki koneii te ranginei, aku mihi ki a koutou. Ki tāku tuahine kaha, tuahine toa, a Beverley, e mihi kau atu ana ki tōpakari, tōpūkā, tōmāia. Nō reira, tēnātātou katoa.

• [From Maketū to Tongariro, to my family from the Bay of Plenty who have arrived here today, my greetings and wishes to you. To my strong sister Beverley, I acknowledge your strength, your patience, and your courage. Greetings to us all.]

I am very proud to stand here today and contribute to the third reading debate on this settlement bill, not least because the people who are the subjects of the settlement are my own relatives, NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I am very pleased to acknowledge their presence, and to stand and support this bill on behalf of the National Party. I am also proud, when we come to third readings of settlement bills, because I came into Parliament with the National Party under the leadership of Jim Bolger and Sir Douglas Graham. Their team at the time, in 1994, decided to commit to a genuine settlement of treaty claims, and Doug Graham, as was his way—he was very competent and very good at this work—set about, in quite a short space of time, developing a treaty settlement framework that has stood the test of time and is still the framework under which this settlement comes before this House today. So I do want to acknowledge those past colleagues of the National Party, and those in the National Party now, for their foresight and for their commitment to put in train a process that allows tribes—iwi such as NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, who are here today—to put the past behind them and to move forward.

To suffer confiscation at the hands of an authority that one might have expected would be one’s protector, cannot be a happy event. Of course, not all settlements are based on confiscation, but this one was. I think that we today, in the 21st century, can only guess what that must have felt like at the time, when a tribe or tribes were depending on Governments to protect them. Some of those confiscations occurred not far out from the signing of the treaty, which promised that their lands and other resources would be protected, and then they found out, some short time later, that that was not to be the case.

I do not think that anybody can really understand the hurt and the burden of pain that must descend upon the generations, and the difficulty that Māori have had in looking forward while they were carrying that burden. Happily, today my relatives in the gallery will be able to put that hurt behind them, hopefully, and really begin the process of healing. The Minister has acknowledged, as I also want to, that this is a really, really important thing that we members of Parliament are doing in this House this afternoon. For other New Zealanders who say: “Let’s hurry up, can’t we get these things out of the way?”, I point out that Māori claimants are the first people to want them out of the way. They are the ones carrying the burden.

What other New Zealanders must understand, and what they must also have a sense of, is that these settlements are about injustices to their fellow countrymen and countrywomen. This is about injustice. From time to time, we stand and say: “One law for all. Equality before the law.”, but not until this sort of injustice is removed can a group feel that there is, indeed, equality before the law. That is something we must all remember. There is no equality before the law for groups who carry this kind of burden and this kind of injustice.

As I said, this is a good day for this Parliament. I hope that it is an even better day for NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, and a good day for New Zealand overall. I am proud of New Zealand. I am proud of New Zealanders, because we in this country at least have shown that we are prepared to find a way to help put past grievances right. When we see on our television sets what happens in other countries, we can only be grateful that, generally speaking, we are a fair-minded people, and that if we show enough tolerance and patience we can get through this process, and not only restore to ourselves, all of us, a measure of honour but also restore to the tribe their honour and allow them to exercise the mana they have been seeking to exercise all these years.

Again—I keep repeating it, but it is important to say it—this is a good day. Settlements are not an end to the matter; they are, of course, a beginning. But they do bring closure for the current generation, enabling them, hopefully, to feel that in some way they are able to shake off what has happened to their tīpuna in the past. Looking forward to the future, I think these settlements are also about reconciliation. It is only when people start to feel equal that they can behave in an equal manner. Otherwise, the notion of equality is just something floating in the wind.

I expect that pretty soon, Beverley, who I know will not shuffle around getting dirt on her shoes, will be up and doing the business. She, along with the elders, have driven this settlement. I am sure she already has developments in train, and I wish her, and certainly the tribe and all the elders, much success and goodwill for their future. It is important for New Zealand children to understand that they live in a nation that can exercise fairness and tolerance and do the right thing, and that can, when called upon, do great things, and this is one of them.

I say to the Minister that, yes, he certainly can acknowledge that this is the second—or is it the third—settlement. [Interruption] OK. We certainly look forward to others occurring. Of course, National is likely to be in Government pretty soon, and, as we have had such a lot of experience in the area, I can only imagine that settlements will become more timely. Settlements should flow. Either way, it is my view that it is incumbent on all MPs in this House to understand the nature of what is happening today, to understand the importance of these settlements for the tribe concerned, and to support them. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnātātou katoa.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) :NgātiTūwharetoatēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou ihara mai i te nuku o te whenua ki te whakatutukiitēnei kaupapa hirahira e pāana ki a koutou, Rau Rōpata, koutou rā. Ko koutou rā te kanohi ō rātoukuahinga, kuangaro ki tua o te ārai. Nārātou te huarahi iparau, nā koutou te waka itōia kia tau ki uta. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

• [Greetings to you, Tūwharetoa. Greetings to you who have come from a distance to complete this matter of great importance to you, and especially you, Rau Rōpata, and others. You are the face of those who have passed on and are lost from view beyond the divide. They were the ones who ploughed the way, and it is you who hauled the canoe ashore. And so, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you.]

Along with my colleague the Hon Mark Burton, I stand here to support the NgātiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I welcome here today the representatives of NgātiTūwharetoa mai i Te Moana a Toi, who have come here on a very important occasion. This bill comprehensively and finally settles the historical claims of NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. It is a hugely significant milestone for NgātiTūwharetoa and the Crown, and it addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by the iwi. It will enable both parties to move forward and renew their relationship as treaty partners. Prior to the 1860s NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty were prosperous and economically successful. That is well known. However, the loss of NgātiTūwharetoa land and resources through confiscation and other means has hindered their development throughout the past 150 years.

The two issues of historical grievances and Māori economic and social development are deeply interconnected. Although settlement redress cannot hope to fully compensate iwi for their historical losses, or address all their future needs, it provides a platform for future development. This also marks a break from the past. No longer will the relationship between NgātiTūwharetoa and the Crown be focused on the grievances between them. We can get on with the business of working and building a strong and inclusive country together, in the spirit of partnership originally envisaged by those who signed the Treaty of Waitangi.

The governance structures that iwi develop for receiving the redress also play a vital role. As part of its duty to the people of NgātiTūwharetoa and other claimant groups, the Crown requires that a representative—an accountable and transferred governance entity—is established to receive and manage the settlement assets. Good governance is vital to development.

This will be the fifth Act that settles raupatu or confiscation claims. There were many ways in which the Crown unfairly deprived Māori of their land and resources, but warfare and confiscation is viewed by this Government as the most serious. The Crown has made significant progress in settling raupatu claims. The first, of course, was Waikato Tainui. In the last 6 years this has been followed by NgātiRuanui, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Awa, and the settlement bill for Ngā Rauru Kītahi is currently before the Māori Affairs Committee. Taranaki and the Bay of Plenty are partially completed. In the last year the Waitangi Tribunal has reported on two more districts where there was raupatu. We hope that the negotiations can begin for the Gisborne claims soon, once the mandate for negotiations is resolved. Officials have met on the Tauranga claims and already discussed possible structures for negotiations.

To maintain this rate of settlement progress depends on bringing new groups into negotiations, and last year we began negotiations with Te Arawa, for their non-lakes claims, Ngāti Kahu ki Whāingaroa, Taranaki whānui ki te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, Moriori, NgātiManua, and Ngāti Whare. We have recognised mandate negotiators for NgātiApa ki te Rangitīkei and are working with Waikato River and North Island and South Island claimants to progress mandates there, in addition to those I mentioned earlier. I look forward to the day when these groups will be celebrating the passage of their legislation.

During the select committee consideration on this bill attention was drawn to the statements of association listed in the legislation. These statements describe the association of NgātiTūwharetoa with particular sites owned by the Crown. Some have questioned what the Crown is doing putting the legends and spiritual values of a particular iwi into legislation. This settlement legislation, like all others before it, as far back as NgāiTahu, records NgātiTūwharetoa’s views for a specific reason. It is not to give their views primacy over anyone else’s; it is so that in any decisions about important resources, their views are not overlooked. Many grievances throughout the country relate to the failure of decision makers to make decisions that affect Māori on an informed basis. For instance, wāhi tapu could have been unintentionally destroyed because a local authority had never been aware of it. Statutory acknowledgments give the claimant group the opportunity to record its association with the site in a publicly accessible form. Redress instruments like this will make it easier for the Crown to avoid causing further grievances and give iwi confidence that processes exist to protect their interests.

In conclusion, the passage of this legislation marks the end of a long journey for the people of NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I acknowledge the dedication and hard work put in by all those people who contributed to this settlement—NgātiTūwharetoa negotiators, the Ministers, the officials, and iwi members themselves, who voted 95 percent in favour of the settlement. This is a ringing endorsement of the work put in by negotiators. I also pay special respect to those elders of NgātiTūwharetoa who began the journey so long ago towards settlement, but who have passed on before it was completed. Once again, I join my colleague the Hon Mark Burton in commending this bill to the House.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā hoki tātau o te Whare nei. Ā, tēnā hoki ngā manuhiri mai i Te Moana a Toi Te Huatahi, koutou o NgātiTūwharetoa, ngā rangatira, ngākaumātua, ngākuikuia. Koutou hoki te rōpūikawe mai itēnei kaupapa, mai i te wāitonoa atu e koutou ki te Taraipiunara, tae noa ki tēneirā. Nā reira, ngā mihi whānui ki a koutou.

• [Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and indeed to all of us here in the House. Greetings as well to the visitors from the Bay of Plenty, especially you NgātiTūwharetoa, the chiefs, elders, men and womenfolk, you also of the group who brought this matter here, who took it before the tribunal and as a consequence is here today. Therefore, a great acknowledgment to you.]

It is my pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First—and I remind members once again that it is the only non - politically aligned party in this House—to contribute to the third reading of the NgātiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill, and in particular, to signal our support for it.

I acknowledge the presence of a number of members of NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty who are in the precincts of this Chamber, together with members of the claims negotiating team. I also acknowledge their whānau who were not able to travel to be here today and who remain at home listening to what is, essentially, an important day for their iwi. They have arrived at this point after a period of almost 16 years; it has been 16 years since they first initiated their claim. From that time to this, a number of their fellow tribesmen who were involved in this claim have passed on. I support the sentiments expressed by the member for Waiariki in acknowledging those who have returned to the spirit world.

The passing of this bill will give final effect to the deed of settlement entered into between the Crown and NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty back in 2003. It will also see another chapter added to the history of NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty—a chapter intended to place some closure on events that have had an adverse effect on this iwi since the 1860s, when war broke out, ironically, in the Waikato. I say “some”, because although this settlement is full and final, and all parties to this settlement have signed up to it, no one can say that it fully compensates NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty.

Like many other claims already made to the tribunal, this claim relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and, in particular, to the confiscation of most of the land within this iwi’s rohe, the inadequacies of the compensation court process, and the subsequent alienation of the remaining lands that were subject to the native land laws and Crown purchasing.

It is important to acknowledge the team representing this iwi, who have been able to confront the difficulties that are becoming quite common for those who are charged by their respective iwi to negotiate with the Crown. Those difficulties include getting the mandate for their own appointment; getting the mandate of the tribe to negotiate on the tribe’s behalf for what they believe is their entitlement, much of which is consequently not accepted by the other party; negotiations with Crown representatives; and getting the mandate from their iwi to accept final offers. Added to that list is the length of time taken to get to the settlement point—a matter that is clearly a sad commentary on the current process of negotiation and settlement.

However, those difficulties will pale into insignificance given the task that lies ahead for the iwi of NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty in terms of how they deal with the proceeds of this settlement. To that extent, I make this point to the present and future leadership of NgātiTūwharetoa. If they thought that their journey thus far has been one of challenge, I say that the future will provide further challenge, as they confront the demands of the future and of their iwi. I say to the leadership to never forget to look back from time to time, so as to ensure that those they lead are, in fact, still there.

Before I conclude I make reference to two particular issues that arose during the earlier debates on this bill. The first one is in regard to references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being included in the bill. It is well known that New Zealand First is seeking to have all references to the expressions “the principles of the treaty”, “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, and the “Treaty of Waitangi and its principles” eliminated from all New Zealand statutes, including all preambles, interpretations, schedules, and regulations.

The references to the principles of the treaty as articulated in this bill refer to an apology already given and to the definition of historical claims. It is stated in clause 15 that in terms of the deed of settlement and this Act, the settlement “is final”. The settlement therefore ensures that there is finality to these claims. New Zealand First is able to vote for this bill, because we support the settlement process and because the bill makes no functional reference to future decision-making around the expression or the concepts of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The second issue is that during the Committee stage an amendment was made by way of Supplementary Order Paper 367 to amend the English text. I refer to recital 32. The Supplementary Order Paper from the Government asked for the omission of the words “NgātiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) around Kawerau”, and the substitution of the words “NgātiTuwharetoa around the Kawerau area”. However, the Māori text was not amended. New Zealand First subsequently lodged an amendment to reflect that amendment, with the suggestion that the Māori text be amended to read: “iwaenga te rohe o Kawerau”.

To my utter surprise, the Minister in the chair at the time, the member for Waiariki, Mita Ririnui, a Māori whom I regard as quite fluent in the use of the Māori language, refused to support the proposal. In his words, it was purely a matter of semantics. I tell that member that we in this House have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation made here is clear and accurate to all New Zealanders and, in particular, to those affected by it. Although it may be said that the amendment is unlikely to affect the intent of the bill or the durability of this settlement, I think we have a responsibility to ensure that the use of te reo Māori in legislation is correctly translated, whether it be from, or into, te reo.

In furthering the use of te reo Māori in legislation passed by this House, I had intended to propose that the title be amended to read “NgātiTuwharetoa (Te Moana-a-Toi-te-Huatahi) Claims Settlement Bill”, but because of the earlier lack of support by the member for Waiariki, I felt compelled to pass up that opportunity. History provides enough evidence to give credence to what I have said. If anyone has any doubt in that regard, I refer them to a particular document first signed in 1840 at Waitangi, in which the Māori text was not a clear translation of the English text.

Finally, on behalf of New Zealand First, I wish NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty all the best for their journey—a journey intended to bring them economic, social, and cultural prosperity. Their success in that regard will be of benefit not only to them but also for New Zealand Aotearoa.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : Te manuhiri tūārangi, ngākaumātua, ngā rangatira o NgātiTūwharetoa ki Kawerau, kua tae tautoko mai itēneiahiahi, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.

• [To the visitors from afar, the elders and chiefs of NgātiTūwharetoa of Kawerau who have come here this afternoon in support, welcome, welcome, alight here.]

The Greens extend to NgātiTūwharetoa congratulations on their achievement in this claim for restitution and redress for the crimes committed against them in the past. We will be voting in favour of this third reading. That said, it is always very hard, I find, to vote in favour of these settlement bills. I know that other parties take a very surface and simplistic approach to them, but the Greens understand deeply what a sacrifice their achievement has meant. We recognise the hurt and the difficulty, the potential for fracturing, caused by a process whereby winners and losers are specifically picked. We support these bills, because we will not perpetuate the cycle of legislative and structural abuse that is the treaty settlement process. We will not undervalue the enormous achievement of iwi getting as far as this through the settlement process.

But our objection to the settlement process is also because we do not want to be complicit in a process that is unjust, that returns no more than 1 percent, if that, of the original stolen resources, and that requires iwi and hapū to make sacrifices they should never ever have been required to make. I know that those involved in the treaty negotiation processes, across the board, feel similarly. But they also acknowledge and work with the duress of poverty that is the settlement process, and that the settlement process exploits, because they see that steps to rangatiratanga, in some form, need to be made for their people. We understand that.

The Greens want to see a settlement process that is developed by Māori. If we are to be committed to restorative justice, it is critical that the wronged party has control over the nature of that restoration. Otherwise, as with other justice processes, the victim will remain disempowered. We completely oppose the notion of time limits to treaty settlements, because to impose such time limits purposefully excludes iwi from restoration of the historical wrongs committed against them. The capacity to engage in the settlement process is already critically dependent on Government funding or funding through the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, which ties its criteria to the needs and desires of Government agencies. If iwi miss out on Government funding, soon, they will have no chance of obtaining the redress that justice entitles them to. That is structural racism.

The bill before us tells a story about the old Compensation Court, which tried to provide redress. But because it implemented only the values and processes of the dominant culture at the time, it not only failed to provide redress but, in returning individual and not collective title, enabled the further alienation of land and the loss of precious economic and cultural resources. Those resources have not been fully restored by this bill. The Compensation Court processes described in the bill are written again in what we are doing today. We have to learn from our mistakes. We say that often in this House. We have to learn from our mistakes, but this and previous Governments have blindly refused to do so. Māori, iwi, and hapū suffer as a result.

I refer to some of the issues briefly raised at the Māori Affairs Committee by other iwi and hapū who have been struggling to have their claims and views heard in the settlement process. There are stories of losing battles to get funding because of the arrangements—ad hoc though they seem to be—between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust that pick winners and losers. There are stories about claimants’ struggles to get the research to back their tribunal claims, and to stand alongside other iwi as independent and capable of negotiating their own claims separately. They are not new stories. Neither will they be the last that the Government, the select committee, and future Governments hear during the treaty settlement process.

I acknowledge that claimants’ rights are undermined by this bill. Until the Government—having talked to claimants—reviews and alters the treaty settlement process in accordance with the actual needs of claimants, settlements will always be, in part at least, tools of oppression used against the claimant groups because of the pauperisation that the process requires and used against the other iwi and hapū whose rights are legislated away because of Government haste and political expediency. Part of the structural violence that is the colonisation process is seen in the more recent failures of the Government properly to address related issues. It has not been just this Government, either, but also previous Governments.

The bill refers to the pollution of the Tarawera River by the Kawerau pulp and paper mill. The clean-up of that river has not been done. It remains poisonous. The toxic sites remain unclean, exposed to the environment, and vulnerable to floods. When I was there last year I saw asbestos rubble lying fully exposed on contaminated sites along the main road to the mill. Whose responsibility was it to clean it up? Nobody took responsibility. Who suffered the effects of the pollution? It was the workers and the people who live in the area. Many of them were NgātiTūwharetoa people who have lived and worked near that site for years. Is it a treaty issue? Yes, it is. It was only a month ago that the Sawmill Workers Against Poisons, Greenpeace, and others came to Parliament to tell MPs what was really happening as a result of the poisoning of the environment in their rohe—the sickness, the birth defects, the intergenerational illnesses. Where is the restoration of these historical wrongs? They are nowhere.

Today is a very important day for Tūwharetoa, and for all New Zealanders, as they see the conclusion of this settlement claim for this iwi. Some resources are being restored, and that is a good thing. We celebrate that as a good thing. We also celebrate that the iwi is now able to step away from the demands of Parliament, from the criticisms, the accusations, the abuses of Government and members of Parliament in this House, and the demands and requirements of Government agencies, and will finally be able to concentrate on their own needs and meet their own aspirations themselves, as they have always been entitled to do. The Greens want to see a just process that is durable and acceptable, because Māori have been part of the development, the architecture, of it. We want a process that meets the standards set by tikanga Māori and not by political expediency. Kia ora.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : It is always hard to follow some of the speeches on the settlement bills, and it is particularly hard to follow speeches from members like the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, Metiria Turei, and others who have a very honourable purpose, who want to see the best for their country, and who are making acknowledgments to folk who have been hurt. They wish the parties all the best, and certainly they wish the recipients of the treaty settlements all the best. They wish them to have prosperity, pride, and a focus on the future, which are things that every New Zealander hopes for from the treaty grievance process. But I believe it is important that someone in this House—and ACT is prepared to do this, however much the other parties may howl at us—warns of the danger of believing in one’s own rhetoric and of being persuaded by one’s own fervent wishes. I look at the settlement bills and I see that they are being passed as Acts of Parliament. They are statements of law, and the claim is that they are intended to put grievances behind us. So I look at them as a lawyer, and as a lawyer who is aware of just how tempting it is to other lawyers to find more problems where there should have been settlements—to turn what was intended to be a solution into permanent grievance work.

When I look at this bill, I see in it a pattern that this Government and earlier National Governments have perpetrated: a pattern of self-deception. The bill contains deliberately vague terms. It contains deliberately fuzzy language. It contains promises that are deliberately intended never to be called upon. One clause may contain assurances, but 10 or 20 clauses later those precise assurances are negated. The generation that we are part of may understand that the bill is an attempt to reach a political compromise. It may be well meant, but the generations to come will simply look at it and be mystified. They will ask how it could have been that the Parliament of New Zealand, in trying to settle grievances that had festered for decades and decades because of a complete mismatch in understanding, or because one side thought the other had been tricky with regard to language, could go ahead and pass law designed to do exactly the same thing again.

We look at the protocols and the statutory acknowledgments that the Crown sets out in the schedules—accounts of mythology, accounts of special value, and accounts of guardianship values that NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty will be given an opportunity to impose on areas that are important to it. It looks at first sight as though the Government is handing over a genuine power of protection. Then we go a little further on and find that the clauses expressly state that all bets are off. The environmental authorities and the various bodies that have delegated government powers in the Bay of Plenty are told that they must have regard to those things, that they must be solemnly recorded on titles, and that they have to be drawn to the attention of people who are looking to use land. However, we then find that those same bodies are told that they are to give them no more weight than anyone else’s submissions, and that they have no effect in law. They are simply statements of empty rhetoric. I do not think that that is a recipe for a durable settlement. I think future generations and courts will say that they cannot imagine that Parliament actually meant this settlement to have no practical effect, and they will make it have effect. What effect? That will be invented by judges on the basis of contending, bitter claims.

Another reason why ACT will not vote for these kinds of settlements is that they rewrite and falsify history, without even making it consistent. In this legislation, the Crown apologises because land was handed back, presumably in a good-faith attempt to try to mitigate what had been a wrong. It was handed back in individualised titles. The complaint now is that the original wrongs were wrong because collective punishment was meted out. Although some of the iwi had rebelled, others did not, but the Crown did not distinguish between them when it exacted its own redress—when it took revenge, if you like; utu, or muru—on the land that was held collectively. So why do we now have pages and pages of grovelling apology that states that the Crown “done wrong” because it handed back individual land titles, when the people complained initially that their collective land was taken? One cannot have it both ways. If people are to be treated as individuals and as not being responsible for what their whānau or hapū have done, and if they are treated as individuals and the only assets that are available for seizure are those that are held individually, why would the Crown not create individual titles? One cannot have it both ways.

I also think it is shameful that this Parliament is apologising for actions that, as clause 8(3)(f) states “eroded the traditional social structures, mana, and rangatiratanga of NgātiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty). The Crown failed to adequately protect NgātiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) from the impact of these actions and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles.” The “Winston Peters Party”, which is busy promoting a bill to abolish the so-called principles of the treaty, is voting for this bill despite that utterly fraudulent apology. This is a Government that is deliberately eroding social structures. It is not only eroding the social structures of Māori but is eroding the mana of men throughout our community. It has changed schooling so that courage is a lost virtue. It has specialised in making everyone victims, in whining over spilt milk, and in providing a remedy for every pretended wrong. That has nothing to do with the grievance industry of the treaty. This Government has set out to undermine the status of men and families. It has set out to take any concept of muru or utu out of justice. This Government does not believe in punishment and in right or wrong, yet we have a formal apology in this bill for eroding traditional social structures. That is unbelievable. The Government has destroyed the distinction that New Zealand was so proud to have created over a century ago between Church and State, and that is now included in the bill. We passed a secular education Act and we tried to make sure that we knew the difference between religion and the State. Now we have a bill that deliberately recreates a form of coercive force to statements of spiritual values.

This is not a bill to be proud of. It grasps at a temporary political solution to an embarrassment for both National and Labour, which set out and encouraged completely unfulfillable expectations. Now they are creating documents that are full of weasel words that no one, even in this Parliament, understands or can define. The Government will leave it to the judges and to future generations to argue about what it meant. The bill does not deal with the treaty. It cannot be a full and final settlement. It does not even pretend to be full and final in terms of contemporary claims. It is a shame that the members of another generation are being set up to regard each other with suspicion.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I stand on behalf of United Future for the third reading of the NgātiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill, and I welcome members of NgātiTūwharetoa to the House today.

I do not want to delay the passage of the bill by taking a long time, but I want to reflect on the fact that this settlement begins with an agreed historical account, including Crown acknowledgments that form the basis of a Crown apology. The simple fact is that 87,000 acres within the traditional rohe of NgātiTūwharetoa were confiscated. Of that acreage, 20,000 were returned into individual ownership, rather than to iwi or hapū, so that the tribal estate remained unaffected. Part of the consequence of being dispossessed of their land was the loss of access to traditional foods, medicines, and housing materials. In the 20th century Rangitaiki swamp lands were drained and access issues were overtaken by a complete loss of those traditional tribal resources.

Accompanying the acknowledgment of the historical facts is an apology for the past breaches of the treaty and the cumulative effect of those breaches on successive NgātiTūwharetoa generations. Following close on the heels of the acknowledgment and the apology is a series of provisions for cultural redress, which includes establishing at Matatā a reserve that will restore access to traditional foods for non-commercial purposes. The bill will also secure and provide protection for places and sites of traditional cultural significance to NgātiTūwharetoa. The commercial and financial redress is valued at an extremely modest $10.5 million, with first right of refusal on significant sites.

United Future wishes NgātiTūwharetoa well, and congratulates them on this settlement. We acknowledge all those who have negotiated this claim, and we acknowledge those generations who never lived to see this day but who shared in the loss and the process that brings us to today. United Future is, therefore, very happy to support the third reading of this bill.

NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) :Tēnei e tūana ki te tautoko ngā mihi, mai ingātahataha o te awa o Waikato, mai i te maunga o Taupiri ki NgātiTūwharetoa ki Kawerau, tēnā koutou.

• [I rise and in turn add my acknowledgments from the river banks of the Waikato and the mountain of Taupiri, in support of those expressed to NgātiTūwharetoa of Kawerau; greetings to you all.]

I join with my colleagues to support the third reading of the NgātiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Already the House has heard that the bill is in part connected to historical events subsequent to the Land Wars of the 1860s and confiscation of lands. Much of that historical account is included in the bill. More particularly, it includes the avenues for redress.

I want to make my contribution in light of discussions that were held before the Māori Affairs Committee. We spent some time debating two particular aspects of the settlement, and they are worth restating in the third reading. Firstly, we debated the issue and definition of “whāngai”. I reiterate that the committee felt that claimants should decide on how they want to express whāngai in their settlement bill and, more important, to determine just how benefits are to accrue to tribal members according to their tikanga. This was a subject of some discussion before the select committee, and it was noted in our report back to the House.

The second issue was around the geothermal statutory acknowledgment. Our deliberations became quite fixated on the way in which a geothermal statutory acknowledgment would be referred to in an Act of Parliament. It is important to mention that many members around the select committee table did not believe that the particular origin of association to geothermal resources, as told by ancestors and passed down through generations, should be included as such in an Act of Parliament. Quite frankly, none of us could guarantee that the iwi’s stories would not be made a mockery of in this House, as is so evident from derogatory remarks that are being, and have already been, made with regard to taniwha and the like.

I think that what is in the bill safeguards the iwi’s particular association to the geothermal resource, and the integrity of the iwi’s own story. Albeit it was not the wish of its particular negotiators at the time, it was the reasoning for the committee’s decision.

I sincerely look forward to any development opportunity that looks likely to arise from that statutory acknowledgment, as it is the first of its kind and we should celebrate that—certainly on this side of the House.

I take the opportunity to thank advisers from the Office of Treaty Settlements, Heather Baggott and her team, as we have had quite a few learning points in considering this bill and the issues that have arisen from it.

From the committee’s perspective, it is important that the information received by advisers is accurate and reflects agreements reached with the claimant group, but that it also reflects concerns expressed by the select committee back to the claimant group. We felt that that is an important role the Office of Treaty Settlements plays, and will be increasingly so as we deal with more and more settlements.

In many ways, the Office of Treaty Settlements became integral to the transmission of information while the bill was still with the select committee. No doubt our committee will continue to ensure that it is a full and robust process, and I certainly thank Heather Baggott and her team for persevering with the deliberations before the committee. It was not an easy task at times.

I want to make a comment on the use of te reo Māori in bills before the House. We are going into new territory with the claims settlement bills, as most preambles are expressed in both te reo Māori and Pākehā. Mechanisms for redress often use Māori words in order to restate what that mechanism means in terms of redress measures. I agree with the member from New Zealand First in that, as legislators and as Māori in this House, we should endeavour to ensure that that is done in an accurate and robust way, according to the intent of both the claimants and the Crown. That said, I know that the process will probably be organic and, I hope, a positive movement forward. I look forward to the day when we are writing laws in Māori.

Lastly, treaty settlements in themselves cannot solve all the problems that continue to exist in our communities, and neither should they. The treaty settlements provide a platform of opportunity for claimant groups, like NgātiTūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty, to move from grievance to reconciliation and to restoration, and to the advancement of their own aspirations. That is as it should be. It is not an easy journey, but deciding to start somewhere puts the next generation on a firm footing.

Nō reira, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou itēneiwā, tēnā koutou katoa.

• [And so at this point in time, I acknowledge you all, greetings.]

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) :Tūwharetoa o Te Moana a Toi, tēnā koutou katoa.

• [And so my greetings to you all, Tūwharetoa from the Bay of Plenty. ]

This is a good day for the New Zealand Parliament, because it marks more progress not only for NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, but for the country as a whole. The National Party is very pleased to support this settlement bill, because it has made a big commitment to ensuring that the settlement process moves more smoothly and with greater speed, in the near future.

Many people would wonder why we separate out some of our concerns about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from our commitment to the preservation of te reo Māori and the speedy resolution of treaty grievances. It is all pretty simple. Our view is that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed as many rights to non-Māori as it did to Māori. I ask people to consider that in light of this particular settlement. Many people will never understand quite why settlements are done, but what we have today in this bill’s preamble is all the history that indicates why a grievance exists.

In essence, in the early part of New Zealand’s modern history, post-1840, there were clearly occasions when the two main groups of people here, Māori and non-Māori, had disagreements. In this case, the disagreement is well-documented, right through to the start of the Waikato wars in about 1862. There was a subsequent confiscation from NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty of some 87,000 acres, because they fought against the Crown. Even though the Crown at the time afforded a certain amount of amnesty to many of the people involved in those early conflicts, the land remained confiscated.

As far back as 1863, the New Zealand Settlements Act of that year was designed for the hearing of claims for the return of confiscated land. But in the case of this claimant group, the 87,000 hectares was not given back to the entire iwi; rather, it was split among about 14 people considered suitable to hold the land. I think that in essence that would be the reason for the long-held grievance of the claimant group. If that is not entirely the reason, forgive me, but it is what I seize upon as being a good way of illustrating why we go through the settlement process.

All this legislation does today, effectively, is to confirm for NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty what article 2 of the treaty confirms for any New Zealander today who holds and owns land or other property. Therefore, as a settlement bill, it is a statement that in this country people who are wronged can have that wrong put right with goodwill and with the right lead from the Government. I think that when we look back on this part of history, perhaps in a hundred years from now when most of us will not be here—I will probably still be here, but many others will not—we might well say that this was an interesting period in our history. We might say that it was a period in which a lot of the dislocation of direction that occurred in the early years up to about 1880, and then the ignoring of the grievances that were created right through, probably until the mid 1980s, were put right, and that it was a period when as a nation we were able to be much firmer on the ground in relation to the rights the treaty guarantees to all of us.

It is that claim—that the treaty guarantees as many rights to me, a non-Māori, as it does to anyone who is Māori—that probably causes the most contention and political discussion at the present time. Nobody who clings to the treaty as being important to him or her should see any threat to that relationship coming from the position we take. We simply say the treaty has a series of rights that all New Zealanders can claim, and this settlement bill ratifies that. So our message to NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty is: “Congratulations on reaching the end of a very long road, and best wishes for where this settlement will take the group.”

We know that there are some pressing problems in this country that cannot be ignored by any Government. One of those problems is the wealth-base of the country. New Zealand is not a wealthy country, despite what we like to tell ourselves, compared with our neighbour across the ditch—Australia. People ask whether that is a fair comparison. It is a fair comparison if people are choosing to leave here and go there. One of the interesting things is that groups like NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty will not leave here, because this is very much their home—just as much as it is the home of anybody else who has come here. Individuals in families may well choose to leave, so the need to address that economic gap between Australia and us is quite pressing.

But when we look just at us, we see there is a massive gap between the average incomes of non-Māori New Zealanders and Māori. That gap is about $6,000 a year—a huge income gap. When people get wound up about treaty settlements and fisheries settlements and everything else, I think it is interesting to consider that if we took all the money that goes into those settlements and divided it among the people who claimed to be Māori in the last census, we would give them about $2,000 each—once. But dealing with that income gap, that disparity within our own economy, would give them $6,000 on average per year.

So the sort of settlement that is being ratified in this bill, the handing to NgātiTūwharetoa of the tools to carve their own destiny, not only in their tribal and cultural sense, but also economically, is as important for the rest of the country as it is for those who receive the settlement. I say again to NgātiTūwharetoa that we congratulate them on the long years they have struggled to see this success. We wish them all the best for a bright future. It is not only theirs but also for this entire country—for us. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : That was an excellent speech from Mr Gerry Brownlee. I think it put very carefully the reason why National supports settlements, and it gave our vision for our country, Māori and non-Māori alike, as we move into the 21st century. I want to emphasise the importance of looking forward in doing that, and how we have to do that.

I also want to pick up on a theme developed by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu, who talked about justice and equality, which of course are at the very heart of National’s philosophy, not just on treaty issues but on much broader issues. It is actually the reason why we carry out settlements. We cannot achieve equality before the law—equality being probably the deepest single value for our country—unless we also achieve justice. So what we are doing today, on behalf of virtually the whole Parliament, is giving the Crown’s recognition of the need to do justice for NgātiTūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. That is why the settlements are so important, and that is the reason we need to complete them.

I must say I remain somewhat disappointed with the view of the ACT party. It seems to me that ACT members are saying that unless a settlement meets, in each and every particular, their expectation of what it should be, then there is no way the settlement can be supported by them. The problem with that point of view, of course, is that it is such an exclusive approach to settlements.

Settlements are, of necessity, something of a compromise and a consensus, not just within this Parliament but also by NgātiTūwharetoa themselves. They also have to compromise, or else there would no settlement. Compromise is an inherent part of the process, and I would ask my colleagues in the ACT party to contemplate that particular issue.

The promise of our country, both in 1840 and today, is that all our citizens will be treated equally and, as I said, part and parcel of that process is the completion of settlements. I noted the comments by the Minister that as a nation we have been in the settlement process now for 20-odd years. Many of the claims themselves have a genesis going right back into the 1980s but, of course, it is time now, after 20 years, to be able to say that we need to hasten the process. There seems, finally, to be some dawning recognition by the Government of that need, and I suggest that that recognition would not have occurred but for Dr Brash’s speech some 18 months ago.

During the Committee stage I pointed out some of the defects of this legislation. Some of those defects were also noted by Mr Franks. I also say that, as we go forward with settlements, a National Government would do things somewhat differently. I want to touch briefly on some of those differences.

I do not believe it is necessary now to constantly take an apologetic view of history, without any recognition of the standpoints of people back then. We must certainly recognise that injustices were done, but we should at least acknowledge that both Māori and Crown representatives were living in a different experience in the 1860s. Both groups were in a different experience and had a different expectation.

For instance, is it actually so bad that some land was returned to individuals? For many Māori, individual ownership actually laid the foundation for economic well-being. That fact does not, of course, diminish the accompanying injustice whereby the iwi did not get any settlement. But individualisation of title is actually part of the pathway to prosperity, and I feel we make a mistake in not recognising that.

There is a similar position in relation to the drainage of swamps. Where would the New Zealand dairy industry be today if swamps had not been drained? We can think of the prosperity right though the Hauraki Plains, and in much of the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato, generally. I know that Nanaia Mahuta well understands the importance of improving land in order to build prosperity. So rather than that action harming Māori, it actually benefited Māori, and we need to be careful in the way in which we record our history.

The point about the inclusion of the principles of the treaty has been well made by New Zealand First speakers, but I just add this: the problem with the inclusion of principles—not just in this legislation but generally—is that it blinds people to what the treaty actually promised, which was the protection of property. That is the true foundation for the reason we are undertaking these settlements, and we would do much better for ourselves as a nation if we had reference to the terms of the treaty—the actual undertakings—rather than to some fanciful notion of principles that, frankly, I have yet to hear the Government give any credible explanation of, no matter how much it tries.

Pita Paraone: Haven’t they given any explanation?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: No, they have not.

I turn now to the vexed question of myth and legend. I am one of those who says that they have no place in the law of our land. Everyone has beliefs. It is impossible to be a human being yet to have no beliefs. The question is: do we put those beliefs in the law? The situation is not to say—as Nanaia Mahuta and, apparently, the Green Party say—that if we do not put them in the law they are therefore diminished. That is simply false.

The whole notion of equality rests on the fact that we say our law applies to everyone equally. If we put into law the beliefs of some people but not of others, what we are actually doing is introducing inequality into the law. [Interruption] There is simply a lack of understanding, it seems, on the part of the Labour Party and, obviously, of the Green Party, on the role of belief, law, and the meaning of a secular society.

But this is perhaps not the day for the development of those issues; this is a day, in essence, of celebration, and a day of restitution and restoration. Parliament is voting for these settlements—unfortunately, I might say—not unanimously. It would be better if the settlements were being voted for unanimously, with people’s particular concerns or parties’ particular concerns being recorded, nevertheless.

I want to congratulate NgātiTūwharetoa today. As a number of speakers have said, this is the end of one phase of their journey but the beginning of another phase. I want to note particularly BevAdlam, the chief negotiator. I know she will have a hugely important role in the next phase of development, on behalf of her whānau, hapū, and iwi.

I want to conclude with this statement: National is proud of its record in treaty settlements. We believe that they need to be hastened for the benefit of our nation. I stand alongside my colleagues Gerry Brownlee and Georgina te Heuheu in sketching, for the benefit of this upcoming election, our way forward, which we anticipate will be endorsed by New Zealanders.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health), on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill extends the period of the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006, with the ability for the date to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. The current controls were introduced in response to concerns about the potential threat of xenotransplantation transmitting new infections to recipients and to the wider community. There were also concerns about the adequacy of regulatory review processes, and the social and ethical issues associated with xenotransplantation.

The current controls allow xenotransplantation trials to be considered and approved by the Minister of Health on a case by case basis. Strict criteria must be met before any approval can be given. New Zealand has therefore adopted a rigorous regulatory approach, rather than forcing a moratorium. No applications have been made to the Minister of Health under the current provisions. Without this bill, the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation will end on 30 June 2005 with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act 1981. After this date, the scientific and integral oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained in section 30 of the Medicines Act. The section 30 controls were previously identified as being inadequate, and despite further information on xenotransplantation being published, the Minister of Health is advised that there is still a need for additional oversight of this controversial emerging technology.

Xenotransplantation is currently an experimental technique only. There are only a small number of animal or human studies of possible efficacy, and it is far from clear whether a transplanted animal organ could function properly in a human. In the opinion of a number of authorities, the transmission of retroviruses to humans via xenotransplantation is a credible potential risk to public health. However, the magnitude of the risk is the subject of considerable debate amongst experts. In the view of concerns about the safety and efficacy of xenotransplantation, similar jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, and the UK, have stringent controls on xenotransplantation. To the knowledge of the Minister, no clinical trials are currently under way in these countries.

In New Zealand the Bioethics Council is currently undertaking an extensive public dialogue on xenotransplantation. This involves, in an open submissions process, an online forum and a series of meetings to ascertain the level of public acceptability around this technology. They expect to complete that process and to advise the Government of the outcome in September 2005. Allowing the controls on xenotransplantation to lapse would pre-empt that process.

The Minister of Health is monitoring international developments and regulatory approaches to xenotransplantation and emerging research on the safety of xenotransplantation. The ministry is also undertaking work on the type of legislation that may be required for this practice in the future. This work has been undertaken as part of the Ministry of Health’s review of the regulation of human tissue and tissue-based therapies. Finally, as many of the risks associated with xenotransplantation carry severe consequences and are uncertain, this Government is proposing a precautionary and rigorous regulatory approach, as already adopted by Australia, Canada, and the UK.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : My view is that this is a very sad day because the Labour Government is imposing a blanket moratorium on a very promising technique that could help tens of thousands of New Zealanders, in about the crudest, most unthinking way possible. There is no doubt that a moratorium, which is what is being imposed until at least December 2006—and it could be extended—is an absolutely unthinking way to manage critical medical research. We have just heard the Associate Minister of Health say that all xenotransplantation should be basically stopped in New Zealand. He probably has not even bothered to read the Ministry of Health’s report to the Health Committee, which describes the vast spectrum of techniques that are available. They do not just include organ transplantation. They include cellular xenotransplantation and external xenotransplantation therapy.

It seems ridiculous that we have in this country technology that 5 or 6 years ago might have seemed to carry a degree of risk—even though it was used here on six patients, some of whom have demonstrated that it is successful and there has been no evidence whatsoever of risk—but that in the meantime has been shown to be much less risky than it was thought to be. Yet the Government, instead of being prepared to look at scientific process, has put its head in the sand and said that it will not listen, and that it will clamp an unthinking moratorium on that technology. That is the level to which this Labour Government has fallen. That is its approach to science.

Even worse, the report of the Health Committee, in the name of Steve Chadwick, the chairperson, stated that the committee considered that the content of this bill was straightforward and uncontroversial. Well, the bill is neither straightforward nor uncontroversial, and it penalises tens of thousands of New Zealanders who suffer from diabetes and many other conditions. No submissions on the bill were allowed, despite requests from the National Party and, I believe, the ACT party, and from bodies like Diabetes New Zealand, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the New Zealand Association of Scientists, and the New Zealand Biotechnology Association, all of which are hugely interested in progressing biotechnology in New Zealand.

Perhaps even more poignant and relevant is a letter I received, addressed to the Hon Annette King and dated 13 May, from Living Cell Technologies. It is from Dr Tan, the managing director and an internationally recognised biotechnologist. The letter states: “Living Cell Technologies understands that the New Zealand Government is reviewing the extension of the moratorium on xenotransplantation. This letter is to update you on current developments relative to the moratorium and urge Government to consider lifting the moratorium with respect to transplantation using cells from animals that are not genetically modified. As an international company, Living Cell Technologies has kept up to date on progress in this field in the USA and Europe. In recent years new scientific information supporting the safety of xenotransplantation has been published. LCT wishes to make available its own information and perspective.”

Further, the letter states that in 2004 the Government-sponsored body Investment New Zealand introduced Living Cell Technologies to a xenotransplantation company in China, China Shanghai SeeinglongBiopharmaceutics Ltd. Living Cell Technologies states it is pleased to support the message that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that is free of transmittable spongiform encephalitis in farm animals and hence is an ideal source of high-health-standards animals as a source of cells for medical therapeutics.

I think it is worthwhile to read out Dr Tan’s concluding remarks: “Rather than maintain the current status, in which xenotransplantation is available to New Zealanders who can afford to go to China or Mexico”—known as “xenotourism”—“we respectfully urge Government to review recent information available since the introduction of the moratorium and permit the conduct of clinical trials in xenotransplantation. Such trials would be strictly conducted in a manner regulated and ethically approved by the Department of Health.” That is an eminently sensible approach. It is an approach based on evidence and on risk management. Yet what does this Labour Government do? It imposes a blanket moratorium on hugely legitimate research that should be carried out here in New Zealand.

It is no wonder New Zealand scientists are heading overseas to work. It is no wonder New Zealand Crown research institutes are finding that, because of the regulatory hurdles, they just cannot do genomic work in New Zealand—work that in the case of many Crown research institutes, like HortResearch, AgResearch, and Crop and Food Research, amounts to something like 60 percent of their work. They have to do that work overseas, contracted outside New Zealand, and are losing the critical mass of people and the critical skills required to keep up to date in the area. It is important not only for the biotechnology industry but also for all of us in New Zealand to have a critical mass of scientists who are aware of the possible biosecurity problems that we face. We have to be able to recognise things. We were not able to recognise the varroa bee mite until it was endemic in New Zealand. Things like the foot-and-mouth scare could have huge implications. If we do not have a critical mass of scientists who have the ability to recognise those problems, then incursions will occur unnecessarily, when they could have been prevented. It is the Labour Government’s attitude towards science that perpetuates the problem.

The letter goes on to state that Living Cell Technologies’ current intention is to conduct Food and Drug Administration - approved trials for a neurological disorder, Huntington’s disease, and for type 1 diabetes in the USA. However, Living Cell Technologies would reallocate its resources towards conducting a trial in New Zealand if such trials were approvable. That is a tragedy for New Zealand. Finally the letter states: “LCT’s technologies are New Zealand inventions, and it would give Living Cell Technology’s founders much satisfaction to see these continue to be developed from New Zealand and take advantage of the country’s unique high-health-status animals and high standards of animal care and husbandry.”

It is with great sadness that I see across the House a Labour Government that is not prepared to look at progress in science. It wants to impose a blanket moratorium on very innovative and ingenious work that has been instigated here in New Zealand. Living Cell Technologies initially had to go to Australia. It still has its biology technology here in New Zealand, but it looks as though it will have to do the work in America. That is a tragedy for New Zealand. It is a tragedy for many tens of thousands of diabetics around the world. And that is all being imposed unnecessarily by a Luddite Labour Government that has an absolutely anti-progressive attitude towards science.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) : I am not a scientist, and I do not pretend to understand the details of xenotransplantation. But I do understand that the Government has taken the best expert advice on the costs and risks of allowing xenotransplantation in advance of other, similar countries. The reality is that our friends in Australia have not allowed the types of practices that this bill disallows; nor has the United Kingdom.

I would like to recall the structure of the argument that has been made by the colleague who has just resumed his seat. He is a former doctor who started off arguing on the basis of human health—that New Zealanders’ health demanded access to xenotransplantation. Yet as a scientist he will be aware of the difference between type A and type B error. Type A is where we do not fix something we should fix—we do not do something—and type B is where we try to fix it but end up with an even worse result.

The trick with this issue is that the consequences of trying it and getting it wrong would be absolutely horrific. Diseases like porcine endogenous retrovirus have the potential to jump the species barrier from animals to humans, and we could have a genetic mutation with the most serious consequences. So I argue that on the first ground—the ground of health—the Opposition’s case has not been made.

But the previous speaker moved on from that. He was not satisfied that he had convinced people on health grounds, so he talked about the need to locate research in New Zealand. I say to the Opposition folks that they should come clean. If you want more subsidies for Crown research institutes or medical laboratories, why do you not just come clean and tell us that that is what you are really about?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Not you, Mr Speaker. You, of course, are like the driven snow.

More important, if the case were about biosecurity, which was the Opposition’s third argument, then why would the Opposition place New Zealand’s international reputation at risk by taking steps that our closest friends and trading partners have refused to take?

I believe that the reality here is that the National Party and ACT—not surprisingly, in the latter case—have been captured by the narrow interests of one company: Diatranz. They have been hoodwinked that Diatranz has a fully proven medical technology, but it is still very much at the experimental stage internationally and has not been proven for New Zealand conditions. If the argument is that Diatranz must be relied upon for a cure for diabetes, then I ask National and ACT whether they have heard of Protemix and the excellent work of Professor Garth Cooper and his colleagues. They have not felt the need to leave New Zealand, and there is no suggestion that they are the least bit threatened by this bill.

New Zealand has world-class research. This Government is proud of New Zealand’s science establishment and medical researchers, and we think the Opposition should stop running down Kiwi science, understand the difference between type A and type B error, and adopt a cautious, prudent, and rigorous approach, which is exactly what this bill proposes.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. This legislation will extend the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006, by which time the human tissue legislation should be in place to legislate for this area of biotechnology. The proposed amendment to the Medicines Act currently before us does not call for a ban on innovations in treatment. Instead, it puts an onus on the Minister of Health to be satisfied that issues surrounding them have been adequately addressed before the go-ahead is given.

Xenotransplantation is a complex issue. There is no doubt that this technology is very innovative. It can be used for a wide variety of purposes—Dr Hutchison outlined some of them—from the insertion of animal cells into humans and the growing of human cells on layers of animal cells, to whole organ transplants. All those procedures are still developing. Some are much further along than others. It is a technology that in New Zealand both the public and the Government need to be very sure about. We know that we have world-class scientists here in New Zealand. We also know that medicine in various countries around the world uses replacement heart valves sourced from pigs. But those products are all chemically treated and are not functional living tissue. That is what distinguishes them from the various treatments used for xenotransplantation. If xenotransplantation were simply a risky trial treatment, it might be that an individual’s consent would be sufficient to justify that risk. However, possible risk to human health cannot be justified merely on the grounds of an individual’s consent. If that were the case, we would have a set of techniques that potentially could help a large number of people who are badly off, but there is also the potential for the health of a very large number of people to be threatened.

The Bioethics Council has completed its first round of public meetings. A report is to be presented to the Government in, I understand, August. The council is made up of people who have been given the responsibility for making some initial recommendations about this particular matter. Not one of us in this House is an expert on xenotransplantation, and we need to read the report that is currently being written after the recent round of discussions. I have no doubt that we will be very keen to see the report when it is finally produced. It was very interesting to read that since the council released its xenotransplantation discussion paper in February, public interest in xenotransplantation and the work of the council has become greater than ever. There was strong participation in the online forum, with submissions, and in the dialogue event, with registrations, which shows the interest here in New Zealand.

When we look at other countries, we see that in 2004 Australia announced a 5-year moratorium on clinical trials. In the UK, no clinical trials are under way. In Canada, clinical trials cannot proceed without the approval of Health Canada. That will be the case here in New Zealand, also. We are basically following the line our nearest neighbours are following, and that is what we should do. We know that China and Mexico carry out xenotransplantation on a relatively large scale. Those countries do not have the appropriate regulatory authorities to develop guidelines that would safeguard patients and the people with whom they come into contact, so of course it is far easier for testing to be carried out in those countries. The risks can be regarded as manageable only if proper monitoring of recipients and family contacts can be undertaken on a long-term basis.

The last hundred years have witnessed many attempts to carry out animal to human organ transplants. At this point in time, all of them have failed. We know that all transplanted organs are liable to rejection. There are no guarantees for anyone. Xenotransplants must also bring about that response, perhaps even more so. Significantly, we know too that pigs appear to have been the source of deadly new epidemics. The human Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918, which killed between 20 million and 50 million people across the globe, was, it is believed, a mutation of a pig influenza virus that was spread from American pigs by US troops during World War I. We know that some of the viruses carried by pigs are difficult to eradicate. We also know of examples of diseases crossing between species, such as the bird flu epidemic in Asia. We have not even found a cure for those diseases. The evidence at this point in time appears to indicate that xenotransplantation carries that risk, so we need to take a prudent approach.

With 30 new diseases having been discovered over the last 20 years, most of which have been transmitted from non-humans to humans, some scientific commentators have been led to assert that newly emerging viruses are now the biggest threat to mankind.

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

BARBARA STEWART: Ministry of Health officials advised us during the Health Committee briefing that the human immune system rapidly attacks and rejects tissue from animals, meaning that most xenotransplants fail rapidly. We were also advised that scientists are exploring options to try to solve those particular problems. So the technique is still only experimental. Although we acknowledge that infections may be minimised in the same way as for human infections, science does not know of all the infectious organisms that may infect humans, and definitely what can infect source animals, and here we are looking at pigs in particular. Dr Boyd, Chief Adviser, Ministry of Health, said that substantially more informed debate needs to take place than to date, and it should involve views wider than those who stand to benefit.

Although we want to provide lifesaving solutions for New Zealanders, we want to be sure that medical procedures provide the best possible medical outcomes for everyone. New Zealand First supports this legislation.

HEATHER ROY (ACT) : I stand to speak on the third reading of this bill. ACT New Zealand is opposing this legislation for several reasons. The first of these is that the bill itself is about extending the moratorium until 31 December 2006. Without this bill, the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation will end at the end of June 2005 with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act. After this date the scientific and ethical oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained in section 30 of the Medicines Act. So that is why we have this legislation before us today.

We are opposed to the extension of this moratorium for the sole reason that it is a matter of political expediency in this election year. We believe that the Government does not want to have the issues around xenotransplantation, in particular, debated at this time. It would rather kick for touch and extend the moratorium for another 18 months when, in fact, what we should have—and I agree with Dr Boyd when he gave his advice to the Health Committee—is the wider debate. Rather than delaying that debate we should have it now. He is quite right when he says that it should not be only the people set to benefit who should participate, it should be a very wide debate, and it should encompass everybody’s views. But we would contend that that debate should happen now rather than delaying it completely. There is no guarantee that the moratorium will not be extended even further than December 2006, and I ask the politicians who do support this: are we ever going to have this debate at all? It should be held right now.

The bill was raced through the select committee process, and other speakers have said that the chair of the select committee said that this was an uncontroversial bill. It is only uncontroversial because all the bill is actually about is extending the moratorium. The issues that are covered here, of course, are extremely controversial, and that is why we see such heated debate about this topic. Again, ACT says—and we are joined in this by the National Party—let us have the real debate. Let us have proper consultation from scientists, from experts in the field, and from the wider community so that the real issues are discussed, and we do get that proper rigorous debate that the issues warrant.

Professor Bob Elliott’s treatment for diabetes, and his research, have been widely discussed at all points in this debate—the second reading, the Committee stage that we had yesterday and, in fact, again today. There are many things that Professor Elliott, in taking his research and treatment offshore, has raised. Amongst this the very broad view, and I think the most important one, relates to the type of environment we have here in New Zealand for science and for research. The Government has repeatedly and persistently declared its belief that biotechnology is a main aspect of what it likes to call the knowledge economy. One hears terms such as “bright future” and the like. I contend that what we have here is the opposite. Where is the basis behind this knowledge economy when our scientists—our best and our brightest—have, in fact, been forced offshore to do their research? Particularly with Professor Elliott’s treatment for diabetes, people are now going to have to go offshore to have their transplants. Professor Elliott’s xenotransplants that have been developed by his company, Diatranz, would appear to fit the bill.

I think that in a decade of careful experimentation this prominent medical researcher has developed a very interesting method of dealing with diabetes, and one that diabetics in this country are now going to be denied. The method, I think, is worth touching on very briefly. It is a method of trickling insulin from cells cultured from the pancreas cells of piglets. These are contained within a retrievable tea bag. The interesting thing about this tea bag, if one likes, is that it floats in the diabetic’s peritoneal liquid in the cavity of the stomach. The cells are coated to prevent immune reactions, and the patient’s immune systems are not interfered with at all. We have heard repeatedly from various speakers through the entirety of this debate that we have to worry about immune responses. In this particular area of research and treatment that is not an issue at all.

The whole debate has raised for me—and I have worked in the area of research myself—concerns about research. I think many people just do not understand what research is all about. We have volunteers who have sought information themselves, and who have consented, voluntarily, to the treatments, and to the research that they have undertaken, and they are well aware of the consequences of their actions. They know that there are risks associated with the treatment, risks associated with research, and, in fact, there are risks associated with life. They take this on board and they make a voluntary, conscious decision to participate or to not participate.

There are many people who decide that the research process is not for them, so they agree not to participate. There are others who weigh up the pros and the cons and undertake the research. Many of these volunteers, whom we have heard about during the debate, have decided that it is the thing for them and have had very good results, and in many cases life-saving results. We should not forget this. It is very easy for those of us who do not know much about diabetes and the other terrible diseases that have benefited through the times of history from research processes just to sit here, but it is as much a debate about progress as about anything else.

We have focused heavily in this debate, as one speaker did say, on Professor Elliott, his research, and his company, Diatranz. But we should note that there are many other companies involved, and many other researchers and scientists who also have experienced similar things. They too have been driven offshore to progress their research. The obvious question, when we focus on this particular area of xenotransplantation is: is pig insulin safe for humans? The answer is a very obvious one, too. The answer is in the decades of injecting millions of diabetics with pig insulin. Now, are we about to take that insulin away from people who, since the 1950s, have had a very valuable lifesaving improvement in their quality of life? I would contend that, no, we certainly are not.

The experts in the field, as we have heard, were not able to be called to the select committee, and that is certainly what I would have liked to see. Professor Roger Morris of the New Zealand Veterinary School is a world expert on transfer of animal viruses to humans, and I talked about him yesterday. He is a main adviser to the United Kingdom on foot-and-mouth disease, and to the Hong Kong Government on duck and hen infections jumping into humans. This is what he has to say about the use of pig cells in New Zealanders. “It’s riskier going to the zoo than to have one of these pancreatic cell transplants.”, he declared. He followed that comment with: “I don’t believe it’s risky going to the zoo.”, and I would have to say that I agree with him.

I would like to touch briefly on research in this country. This bill is about delaying science. It is about delaying progress and it is about delaying the ability of New Zealand’s scientists to participate in research. That is one of the main reasons for ACT objecting to this bill and opposing it. I also touched briefly, in other stages of the bill—in the Committee stage, in particular—on retroviruses. A lot of talk has gone on about this, and I described the technique with Professor Elliott’s research.

The retroviruses are a worry. That is why in this country we have very rigorous regulatory regimes surrounding research projects. They are right and they are proper, and we should have some faith in the process. We do not screen our tourists or our immigrants for retroviruses, yet we worry inordinately about retroviruses in research, where we have very tough regulatory regimes in place. I contend that we should trust our experts a little more. If we have the proper processes and regulatory regimes in place, then we should be able to rely on the scientists to fulfil the requirements of those properly.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I say upfront that United Future is supporting this third reading, because this amendment bill extends the expiry date and reflects a desire to put in place sensible legislation designed to facilitate the development of medical science within a safe regulatory framework. The proposal is to have xenotransplantation covered by a new human tissue bill, which is well on track to be introduced into the House by the end of this year.

Missing from the complaints from both National and ACT members was a guarantee that they will welcome that human tissue legislation and allow it to move through the legislative process without any political game-playing. Those sorts of commitments would mean that legislation could be in place well before 31 December 2006. The power to move with responsible speed on this matter could well be within the power of the current Opposition. The National Party, which is campaigning to be the Government, should include a reassurance in speeches made by its members that the human tissue bill will be its highest priority, should it become the Government.

The issue that has been raised about trusting or distrusting the scientific community is a complete nonsense. Responsible scientists never want to operate outside a clearly defined ethical framework. In fact, scientific developments always need to happen within an ethical framework, because ethics, as we have stated before, do not apply just to medical procedures but also include the research processes. As I have said on numerous occasions, the means by which we achieve a medical outcome are as ethically important as the end itself.

If one listens to the Opposition spokespeople, one would think that the progress of xenotransplantation is the only pathway forward for diabetics, kidney patients, and the like, when the truth is that there is a raft of other health initiatives, such as improving our human organ donation rates in New Zealand, that are very commendable, and often superior, options.

I would like to mention now—because one does not get a lot of chance—the work of Andy Tookey and the generosity of Peter Jackson in this regard, because better registration of human donors and better public health promotion around this issue would make a huge difference to our donation rates. Those kinds of initiatives are ongoing and worthy of development. When we start to see one medical option as the only way forward, I think we are in serious strife.

This amendment bill has three clauses: a title clause, a commencement clause, and then the one clause, clause 3, that is what the bill is really all about. The clause amends the Medicines Act 1981 by deferring the expiry of Part 7A from 30 June 2005 to 31 December 2006. It also allows for that date to be extended by Order in Council should it be necessary. However, my expectation—because of the obvious interest across the House on this issue—is that when the human tissue bill comes before the House, we will get great support across all parties to send it to the select committee, call for submissions, and have the whole cause progressed with sensible speed, which would mean that this issue would be a non-issue well before 31 December 2006. United Future is more than happy to support this small amendment bill at its third reading.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : The Green Party, too, is very, very pleased to be supporting the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. This bill, as the previous speaker pointed out, is really a minor, technical bill that extends the date of a moratorium. One of the complaints we often hear from the National Party is about rushed legislation coming before the House. Here we have an example of where the Government has said that because it has not completed the legislation it needs more time to get it right. One would think that everyone in this House would support the idea of getting something as complex as regulations and legislation surrounding xenotransplantation right.

I do not believe that Katherine Rich, deep in her heart, truly believes that xenotransplantation is some great miracle that is almost devoid of risk, which is what she has been arguing. I think her party has told her to say that but that she does not for a moment believe it. I think she knows, like all the rest of us, that xenotransplantation actually involves huge risks.

The member from ACT quoted various people. I want to read a couple of quotations. The first is from a virologist from Cambridge University, who said that if we go ahead with xenotransplantation it will be a step in the dark, because so much uncertainty surrounds it. The second is from a virologist from the University of Texas. He said that it is well established that most new emerging human infectious diseases have their origin in other species, and that a direct method of establishing new infectious human disease would be to implant infected tissue from a non-human species into humans and allow viruses direct access to human tissue. He said that seldom, if ever, have we had as much knowledge to prevent a future epidemic, and that what is lacking is the wisdom to act upon that knowledge.

That, I suggest to the National Party, is what is needed here. What we need is not great excited, shrill calls about the potential of xenotransplantation, but some wisdom to understand the risks inherent in it. Whatever we say, however lightly those members try to dismiss the risks, the truth is that there is the possibility that new infectious organisms not currently known will emerge and infect human beings.

I might add that if that were the case, it would actually threaten the people who receive the pig organs, as well as, potentially, all the rest of humanity. A New Scientist editorial stated that nothing could be worse than if, in trying to save our lives, we inadvertently engineered a plague. So let us not try to dismiss the risks.

Even the Ministry of Health says that, basically, the porcine endogenous retrovirus is present in the DNA contained in the nucleus of all pig cells, and those emerging viruses would pose a particular problem, because they would be difficult to identify.

Surely, we should learn from the past. What was the bovine spongiform encephalopathy Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease crisis if it was not basically the transfer of a disease crossing the species from animals into humans? Surely, something like that would give us cause to think that next time, for something like this, we should get it right.

We know that both humans and pigs carry viruses within their genes. It is possible that they could combine those viruses to create entirely new organisms. We know that all organs donated—like an organ transplant—are liable to rejection. Even with a human-to-human organ transplant the body’s defence mechanisms attempt to destroy the foreign organ. But in the case of xenotransplantation far more violent responses occur. They are called hyperacute rejections. That is an incredibly strong reaction that destroys the new organ within minutes.

Even if scientists manage to avert an inherent rejection by introducing human genes into pigs, the pig organ will still face other rejection processes that scientists believe will be stronger than those faced by human organs. Even if the pig organ survived, there is strong evidence to suggest that it would fail to function adequately within the human body. So let us not present this as if it were the magic bullet when, indeed, it is an extremely risky area. Another issue we need to consider is that rearing pigs under germ-free conditions, which is what is envisaged, is extremely expensive and time consuming, not to mention the cost of monitoring the pigs for the presence of bacteria and viruses. That would involve huge sums of money.

Given that our health system is already stretched, scientists are pointing out, and particularly people with an interest in diabetes, that even if xenotransplantation were proved to be possible, it would take away potentially huge amounts of funds that could be used for the care of patients suffering illnesses that could not be treated by the technology. So even if it were possible, it would be enormously expensive, and it would also involve turning pigs into spare-part factories and plundering their organs. Genetically mutated pigs would be raised in artificial conditions, and those extraordinarily intelligent animals—I see that some members are laughing. The truth is that pigs are intelligent, and they would face an unnatural and distressing existence. Do we not need to consider them as well, or do we humans have the right to use animals, manipulate them in whichever way we would wish, no matter how much suffering we may cause them?

The truth of the matter is that if we are genuine about trying to reduce the epidemic of diabetes in our midst, which is really what most people, when they talk about xenotransplantation, are thinking about, we have two things that we should be doing immediately. One has been touched on by the previous speaker, which is getting human organs, human organ donations—and we have such an appalling record in New Zealand for human organ donations. We have one of the lowest rates of human organ donations in the world. Why are we not trying to do something about that?

Secondly, why are we not trying to do something to prevent the underlying causes of diabetes? Yes, we know that more than 120,000 New Zealanders suffer from diabetes, and we know that lack of exercise and diet are the key causes of type 2 diabetes—particularly fat and foods with a high level of sugar.

If the National Party and the ACT party were really genuine in their passionate desire to treat diabetes, they would be taking strong steps to try to reduce the amount of high-sugar, high-fat foods and drinks that our children are eating and drinking in New Zealand. They would be joining in an initiative to take out of our schools all those high-fat pies and those vending machines selling sugary fizzy drinks. We know that they cause diabetes. It would be an incredibly simple step to get them out of our schools, to try to do something to work with the food industry to stop them from targeting all that food, laden with fat and sugar, at our children. That is the single most effective thing we could be doing to reduce diabetes, but no, we avoid those simple steps and go on about some incredibly risky and expensive technology such as xenotransplantation as though, somehow, that is the panacea.

The panacea is right in front of us—that is, human organs, and improving our diet and exercise. There is no need for xenotransplantation if we were to take those simple, cost-effective steps. If the National Party is serious let us see it make some progress on that and not risk humanity by rushing into a science with such enormous risks.

MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) : That speech came from a member who was going to join a campaign against dihydrogen monoxide—water. Because dihydrogen monoxide had killed lots of people she thought it was a dangerous substance, and when she found out the substance was water she was a little mortified. At least she had the good grace to acknowledge the slip. Anybody who listened to that speech would have thought that some shock, horror legislation was being put through the House, designed to visit all sorts of unnaturals upon the populace at large. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is simple legislation, which the member totally misrepresents. It actually extends the moratorium on xenotransplantation from 30 June 2005 to 31 December 2006. At the very least, the member could have welcomed that. She could do that by way of interjection, if she wished to. In fact, what the extension allows to happen is what the co-leader of the Green Party—which Ms Kedgley belongs to—agrees with, which is for an evidence-based approach to be set up for use with regard to xenotransplantation. The member forgets to tell us, when she talks about diabetes, that there are two types of diabetes, one of which can be treated only by some form of treatment like this. I find it incredible that Ms Kedgley can go on in the way she has about this particular technology and science, without the slightest bit of understanding of them. That explains why she was going to join a campaign to ban water. She just simply does not understand.

Fortunately, most of the Parliament does understand that this particular bill serves a purpose for now, and that we will let the scientists get on with working out whether xenotransplantation is a safe procedure to use in humans over time.

KATHERINE RICH (National) : I agree with the last speaker: let the scientists get on with their work. Let the scientists decide what science that they do. We have heard a lot of talk in the House tonight, much of which I do not agree with. We already have frameworks in place. We already have ways of doing science in this country that are ethical, well-managed, and well-regulated. Judy Turner from United Future said we needed an ethical framework within which to undertake this kind of work. We already have that within the various Acts and regulations that we ask scientists who undertake science in this country to work under.

Judy Turner also asked that the National Party have some pretty weird priorities when it comes into Government. She asked that our No. 1 priority be legislation to do with human tissue. I have a message for that member: when we become the Government, our priorities will continue to be the main areas that Government should be concerned with—health, education, and the economy. I am not saying that what we are debating here tonight is not important, but those are the areas that should be the No. 1 priorities, not individual pieces of legislation like this. She also said that she thought this bill was sensible. I challenge her to stand opposite someone who is desperately waiting for a new treatment, or for some life-saving operation, and explain to him or her why these delays are a good idea. We do not agree.

The National Party does not support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill that we are debating tonight. Even though it has only three clauses and looks like a very short, technical bill, the implications are quite far-reaching. The implications will be huge for the scientific community, and they will be huge for people who are interested in the outcomes of xenotransplantation.

Sue Kedgley made some comments in her speech about her disbelief that I would support this kind of bill. I have one message for that member: pig kidneys—bring them on. Four members of my family have been on dialysis. Another 10 are waiting in the wings. It costs the State about $1,500 per week for their treatment. Many of them would be more than happy to have a pig kidney if the technology came to fruition.

We are not presenting this as being a panacea, as being something that is a magic bullet for all medical conditions, but it is another option. It is really important that we do not try to limit scientific endeavour, because while we do that in New Zealand, other countries do not. Many of our scientists are already making the choice to go to the UK, Canada, and other areas where this kind of research can be conducted. So it is not to be presented as something that is easy. I am not a scientist, but I know that most Kiwis, when they are in the position of having to weigh up their medical options, are smart enough to decide whether they can live with the risks.

Heather Roy made a very pertinent point. She quoted a leading scientist who described one aspect of xenotransplantation as being as risky as going to the zoo. He then went on to say that going to the zoo is not risky, either. I do not think we have heard enough of the scientific debate. These are the sorts of things I would dearly love to have asked officials and experts when the bill went through the select committee process. Yes, we had access to Ministry of Health officials, but we were not able to ask many other groups or experts who, I think, could have advised the select committee as we made our decisions. We did not ask the National Kidney Foundation, we did not ask Diabetes New Zealand, we did not ask anyone from the Medical Association. My colleague Paul Hutchison made a specific request that we invite submissions on this bill, but that was rejected. So it went through the select committee process at breakneck speed.

The report from the Health Committee is misleading, in my view. The bill is described as non-controversial, when in fact there were huge controversy and debate when this issue came up. It is not a minor technical bill. The implications are huge. We are looking at delaying scientific work. When has the answer to a problem of not having all the information been to delay work? I totally understand that we do not know everything about this technology, and that there are some very fair concerns about it. But those concerns can be managed by scientists and by people who want to take part in trials, who can make up their own minds. We cannot halt the scientific tide and expect the problems to go away. There are issues to be worked out with the technology, and some of the comments made about retroviruses, etc. are valid. But with the technology and the pace it is moving at, there are ways to make sure that cells or organs are taken from animals that have been bred specifically for transplants, and that we take the necessary precautions to make it as safe as possible.

I heard David Cunliffe speak on the bill. I was concerned about some of his comments, also. He wanted to give the impression that the National Party had been hoodwinked by one company, Diatranz, and that we were raising these concerns simply because we were bothered about one corporate that had to make a decision to leave New Zealand to continue its diabetes research. That is not the case at all. If anything, we have been trying to put a human face on the problems that will be created by this bill—the people who are waiting for lifesaving operations and treatments. In some cases the treatment might not be lifesaving, but a huge change to a patient’s enjoyment of life might result from getting treatment that is far more substantial than having to take insulin every day, or dialyse every 3 to 4 days. We need to remember that a lot of people are waiting for these kinds of treatments and operations. When we create more and more barriers and hurdles for scientists to overcome, it makes it a lot more difficult for them to carry out this sort of work in New Zealand. Many people in this House have spoken to scientists who now struggle to get the work done in New Zealand. Not only do they spend a lot of time putting together applications and getting projects turned down, but once they start the work they have to get through so many barriers that some areas simply are not worth it. It is better for them to go offshore. That is why many of our best and brightest have voted with their feet and gone to continue their scientific career elsewhere.

In my view, this bill is really a Luddite approach to science. It is a Luddite approach to finding solutions for many Kiwis who are very interested in the outcomes of this work and who do understand that there are risks that can be managed. Those Kiwis are interested in progressing science so that over a period of time new solutions are found for people who need them. It is a very expensive issue for New Zealand right now. Diabetes is epidemic within this country. We have a growing problem of shortage of space in renal dialysis units. Unless we look at alternatives, we will find things become very, very difficult for our citizens.

Sue Kedgley pretends that a huge number of human organs are available in this country. That is not the case at all. We have a huge shortage of them, and many families do not have access to the tissues and organs within their own families, either. So to just bat this issue away and pretend that the science is too complex is a bit naive. The people who are involved in medical research of this kind take their responsibilities very, very carefully. A strong ethical framework that surrounds this kind of work already exists. A number of regulations that scientists are required to follow in order to carry out this work are already in place.

This bill is not about logic. There is no logical or scientific basis for putting this moratorium in place. This is more about delaying progress. It is a real shame that Labour is not serving those who are the human face of the issue.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I do so with some bemusement, because the very honourable retiring member from Invercargill, Mark Peck, got up and gave a very good speech on the reasons why we should not support this bill tonight. Unfortunately, the very junior Government whip sitting next to him forgot to tell him that it was actually one of the Government’s bills and that the Government was supporting it. Mr Peck will vote for it in a minute, when he gets the chance. I thank him for shedding a bit of light that one or two of the Labour caucus members, once they get out from under the ether of socialism and go down south to the fresh air and clear their heads, can come back to Parliament and talk sense about what needs to be done. I am with him 100 percent. This is a pro-science debate and an anti-bill debate because the bill delays science. It is that simple.

Tomorrow in Parliament we will hear Dr Cullen present the Budget. There will be a lot of backslapping, and people will talk about the amazing things that will come out of that Budget, in terms of it being pro-growth, pro-science, and pro-development. Tonight in Parliament we are debating a bill that delays science, and denies scientists the opportunity to experiment and potentially to produce something that would be beneficial to a large number of people. That is an oxymoron. A Government cannot claim to be pro-growth, pro-science, pro - economic development, and pro-health, and vote for such a bill. The two just do not and will not square. I look forward to the honourable member taking another call to explain to me how they do square, because I am absolutely astounded by it.

I want to say to the member that there are a number of experts who have submitted to this debate and this process. One of them, Professor Bob Elliott, has been talked about in a couple of other debates earlier on, along with his company called Diatranz, which has developed a unique and world-leading technology to help people who suffer from diabetes—something that is a major health problem in this country. He has been forced, along with his company, to go offshore—to Australia. He was one of the 600-odd New Zealanders who depart from this country every week. I say to members opposite that this country’s economy, and Dr Cullen’s Budget tomorrow, are able to exist because of the leading edge biotechnology science that has been a hallmark of this country, particularly in the agricultural industries but also in the medical field. This bill is yet another example of how a Luddite Government, with its head in the sand, will stand in the way of that kind of development.

I suggest that the members talk to the likes of Professor Bob Elliott and Professor Roger Morris, a well-known expert who is hired all around the world. He spends more time out of New Zealand than he does in New Zealand. Although Professor Morris’ skills are recognised internationally, back here the Labour Government does not need the advice of somebody like him; it already has its own advisers, who just say “Yes sir, no sir, and what do you want us to do next sir?”. I ask members to listen to the likes of Professor Morris, who is a world-renowned expert. He will tell us that pig-tissue transplantation—xenotransplantation as it is known—is something that could hold the key to a range of problems, in terms of the medical fraternity. He will also tell us that having a very healthy pig herd in this country is the best way to detect any kind of disease that potentially may infect the human population, because pigs are the closest species to humans in terms of that kind of detection. So I ask members to have a talk to him. It is as simple as that. If members ring him up, I am sure he will give them a briefing on some of this stuff.

He has said that the kind of technology that is being proposed in terms of xenotransplantation—and it is not some loony field of new development—is safe, and there is no science at all that can tell us that it is not. That is the interesting question. The test that has to be measured is whether it is unsafe. That is what the debate is about. Are we sure that it is unsafe? How can one tell that it is unsafe if there is no science to say that it is unsafe? We know that motorcars are unsafe, but we all drive them. We know that an earthquake can kill thousands of people, but we still live and work in the capital of New Zealand, which is on a fault line. We know a range of things that are unsafe, but in this case there is no science and no evidence to say that it is unsafe.

Yet tonight we are debating the extension of a moratorium so that scientists can, presumably, go offshore and carry out experiments to develop our technology somewhere else. One of the worst things happening in this country at the moment is that some of the best inventions in the world, in a range of scientific areas, are being taken offshore, because they simply cannot work and survive under the regulatory framework in this country—whether it be tax or whether it be moratoriums on this kind of experiment.

So I say to members that xenotransplantation is not new. It has been around for a long, long time, as I have said in every debate in this discussion so far. The first xenotransplantation took place in 1682 on a Russian nobleman who had a fractured skull. That is going back a bit. The first successful organ xenotransplant took place in 1963. The problem has always been, as has been mentioned throughout the debate, that the human immune system rejects the new material. That is the problem.

To allow science to find a way around that problem, I would have thought, would be hugely beneficial not only for medical science but for a range of other potential science experiments, as well as producing potential intellectual property that could be worth millions of dollars to New Zealand. But, no, not with the socialists in charge. If someone wants to muck around with that sort of stuff that does not sound as though it will fit into their little corner of thinking, then that person must take it offshore. They will not allow it in this country.

What we are debating here tonight is legislation that effectively kicks science for touch for a little bit longer until the Government can get past the next election, then it will be able to have a look out there and see whether it can round up some votes from the United Future party or whichever party might turn up. In the meantime, it will put it in abeyance. The Green Party will certainly not allow the bill to move forward, so the Government will kick it out for another few months—that is the politically expedient thing to do—and see whether it can cobble something together at the end.

Mr Peck’s speech earlier reminds me of the occasion, when I was a new member, when we were relying on Alamein Kopu’s vote for a piece of legislation. She supported it, but the last person who spoke to her disabused her of the notion that she should support it. Halfway through my speech she changed her vote, so for half my speech she was for it and for half she was against it. That is one up on Mr Peck, who spoke in favour of the bill but who will now vote against it tonight.

Some interesting things have happened in Parliament. This, tonight, is not one of them. This bill is another socialist measure to kick the scientists offshore. There is no basis to the argument that has been put forward, and we in the National Party will not support the extension of the moratorium.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : Tonight National will vote against the Oaths Modernisation Bill. We do so on three principal grounds. The first is that it is unnecessary, the second is that it is part of the Government’s surreptitious agenda, and the third is that it is designed to lull the public into accepting a process of incremental change. There is no compelling reason to change our oaths and affirmations. I will give an example of that. The explanatory note of the bill states that the Government is doing important things—so important that it intends to replace the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully”. That has huge significance, I imagine! Further, the Government intends to replace the word “divulging” with the word “disclosing”. It is extraordinary that the Government is spending hours of the House’s time to do something that is pointless and unnecessary.

Now, I know that the Government will say that the bill is just a modernisation bill and that the National Party is opposing it just because that is what that party does to Government measures, but our second reason for opposing the bill is also important. This bill is clearly part of the Government’s agenda of creeping republicanism. Government members know that—they know precisely that. Let us look at the record of creeping republicanism. First, this Government dropped the Privy Council and established the Supreme Court. I ask my colleagues whether a referendum was held on that.

Hon. Members: No!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: There was no referendum. Second, this Government replaced photos of the Queen in our embassies and high commissions with photos of the Prime Minister. Third, it has made the change from the Governor-General taking the general salute at military parades to the Prime Minister taking the salute. Who else takes a salute? The person who usually does that is a president. That is the usual name for such a person. Fourth, the Government is changing the term “Queen’s Counsel” to the term “Senior Counsel”.

Dr Richard Worth: You’re joking!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is right. Fifth, the Government has abolished knighthoods. Finally, as part of the Government’s plot with the United Future party, the lapdog party that surreptitiously supports the Government whenever it can, the Government has created the Constitutional Arrangements Committee.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member that he cannot refer to members or parties in that way. The member will withdraw that remark.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Well, if anyone would take offence, I would withdraw that remark.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be seated. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for the remark.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I withdraw and apologise.

At no stage has the Government set out its real agenda. It clearly does have one, and it is an agenda of republicanism. If we compare, for instance, former Prime Minister Jim Bolger with Prime Minister Helen Clark, we see that former Prime Minister Bolger was perfectly clear to the public of New Zealand about what he intended. He is a republican. He is proud of that, he put it clearly on the public record, and he wanted to have a debate on precisely that. When the current Government is challenged on the issue of New Zealand becoming a republic, its members say: “Oh, no. This is nothing to do with that. It may happen 50 years from now or something like that, but it is not part of our agenda.” That is the difference, is it not? On the one hand there was Jim Bolger, with the courage of his convictions, standing up and being willing to debate the issue with New Zealanders—he actually shifted people’s beliefs; the figures went up from 35 percent to 45 percent in favour of republicanism, simply because of his advocacy—but on the other hand it is clear that in contrast the current Government is moving towards republicanism secretly and covertly, and with the help of its ally and stooge, United Future. So we say that this Government has a surreptitious design, and that this bill is all part of that agenda.

Our third ground for opposing the bill is that the bill is intended to get people used to the idea of change, and to change to long-held traditions. There is no particular reason to do so, but the Government is doing it anyway simply to set the pattern of change, so that for each and every case—or at least, certainly in this kind of case—it can say the change is just a minor thing, and ask how anyone could object to it. Last night I heard Mr Goff say precisely that. But the purpose of the bill is quite different from its stated purpose. The purpose is designed to get people used to the idea of change. A few minutes ago I set out a pattern of behaviour. This bill conforms to that pattern of behaviour. The bill is, of itself, a device, a fiction, a transparency, and in fact it is so successful that the New Zealand First members—members of a party that actually supports the idea of New Zealand’s arrangements remaining as they are, unless there is a clear plan—have themselves been brainwashed. They are supporting this bill going to the select committee, so, unwittingly—and I acknowledge that it may be unwittingly—they themselves have embarked on allowing the process of creeping change, and of allowing small components of change at various points along the way.

I conclude by saying that I could respect the Government if the Prime Minister and others on the Labour benches came out with their agenda and were prepared to have an open discussion with the New Zealand public. But they are not prepared to do that. Instead, they are going through a process of conditioning and grooming that is intended to change the public mood. That is the real purpose of this bill. It is not to alter the wording of the oaths, but to encourage the idea of change. For that reason, National opposes the bill. We do not trust the Government. We have ample evidence as to why we should not trust the Prime Minister. Her statements in this House show an untrustworthy nature, and on that basis we say to New Zealand that this Government cannot be trusted with regard to these kinds of bills. The Government is trying to dupe the citizens of New Zealand. Therefore, this bill should be opposed.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We hear many rubbishy speeches in the House. Tonight we have heard a speech of real excellence, and I would like to say, on behalf of myself and of the member of Parliament for Invercargill, what a great speech we have heard.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows very well that that is not a point of order. I just warn him about points of order.

MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) : I first of all say that I agreed with Dr Cullen earlier on today when he said he could not guarantee that all Government spending was worthwhile, because it was hard to say that the money spent on the Opposition was money well spent. That was actually amply demonstrated by the member who preceded me, the member who praised Mr Bolger but was one of the colonels who led the coup against him.

Hon Member: Shipley’s man.

MARK PECK: Yes, Shipley’s man.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Very short-term memory.

MARK PECK: Yes, very short-term memory. This debate is interesting. I support the bill—surprise, surprise. It is very interesting—

Dr Richard Worth: Don’t ruin it, Mr Peck. It’s good stuff and you’re going to blow it.

MARK PECK: No, I am not. I am going to quote the member’s own words back at him. I am going to remind that member what he challenged the Government to do.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Are you talking about Richard Worth?

MARK PECK: This is Richard Worth, and it is before he became a doctor, by the way. Now that he is Dr Richard Worth, I am sure he stands by his words. This is what he said we must do: “We need to make our agenda clear in a review of the oaths and affirmations.” And this is what he wants us to do: he wants the removal of old and archaic language from the wording of the oaths and affirmations. We have done it in the bill. It is a very, very good bill. And he said: “We have to make sure we have references to the Queen.” We have done that, too. They are there. I say to the member that he said this about Mr Goff: “He needs to be reminded that the Queen is not only the head of the Commonwealth but Queen of New Zealand.” Well, we know that, too—check, check, check. It is a check, check, check bill. Three out of three ain’t bad!

Hon Member: Meatloaf!

MARK PECK: It is better than Meatloaf. So why is the member not supporting the bill? That is what I would ask him.

Hon Ruth Dyson: He should be.

MARK PECK: He should be, but he has been rolled by Wayne Mapp. Wayne Mapp got him, despite the fact that we have Dr Richard Worth, Mr Wayne Mapp rolled him. I have to say to the member that he has to get a little bit fitter—I see him in the gym from time to time—so he can take on Dr Wayne Mapp, who is not that much of a specimen. He was defeated resoundingly by Phil Goff when he tried to get the Labour Party nomination for Mt Roskill. So, not being able to be a Labour Party politician, he did the next best thing—as far as he could see—and became a Tory.

This is a good bill and I support it.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether the honourable member was referring to me, but his comments are a gross misrepresentation of my political career, which has been star-studded, as the member well knows.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that that was not a point of order.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will be supporting the Oaths Modernisation Bill at its first reading so that it can be referred to a select committee. We are all in favour of having some of the archaic language in the various oaths modernised, as they have been in the proposed texts. It is good that the oaths now have a Māori version. However, we should not exaggerate the importance of oaths. In most cases, uttering an oath does not change people’s actual behaviour all that much. That fact has been recognised, in one respect, in the proposal to drop the teachers oath, which is no longer necessary.

Oaths have a use in marking the beginning of a person’s new responsibility and his or her dedication to it, such as when becoming a citizen of New Zealand, a lawyer, or even a member of Parliament. For an oath to have real effect, the person uttering it should feel as comfortable as possible with it so that it really means something. For years we had people utter a religious oath, even when many of them were atheists or agnostics. Now we at least have in the system affirmations for the non-religious, and those people can now feel truer to their pledge.

Unfortunately, the same principle has not been applied to the question of whether a pledge to the Queen should be included in the oath. The explanatory note of the bill states that among those who submitted to the review group, there was clear support in favour of retaining loyalty to the Queen in the oath. Of course, that support was not universal in the submissions. For a start, the republican movement opposed its retention. However, it is not how many of the limited number of submissions were for or against the retention of loyalty to the Queen in the oath that should count. If we apply the same principle that we have been applying to religion and religious belief—that of not wanting people to swear to something they do not believe in; like not swearing to a god if they are atheists—then we should not make republicans swear their loyalty to the Queen. It only demeans the oath. It devalues the oath when we all know that 35 percent, or more, of the population are republicans and another big chunk of New Zealanders do not really support the monarchy as an institution but cannot really see that this is the right time to make a big constitutional change in that respect.

So all those people who are not really for the monarchy will be reluctantly swearing an oath to Queen Elizabeth, a woman whose office they do not really believe in. To take “loyalty to the Queen” out of the oath is not to deny that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy. We just need to look at countries that have a similar constitutional situation, like Australia—particularly Australia—which is also a constitutional monarchy. That country has a new citizenship oath that does not mention the Queen. It reads as follows: “From this time forward I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.” There is no mention of the Queen. In other countries, new citizens pledge their loyalty to the State or the nation, or to its laws, its constitution, its people, or some combination of those. The United States, for example, is big on citizens pledging loyalty to its “constitution and laws”. In Ireland, a new citizen declares himself or herself to have “fidelity to the Irish nation and loyalty to the State”. In Jamaica, people pledge to “the constitution and the people of Jamaica”.

The Canadian Parliament has before it a bill that represents a compromise in terms of changing the oath away from being an oath to the monarch. It is proposed to remove the reference in the oath to the Queen’s “heirs and successors”. Unfortunately, that term is still in our oath. I think that the reference to “her heirs and successors” helps to get to the heart of the problem we have in keeping the monarchy as part of the oath, because it reminds us that the Queen is not our head of State as Queen of New Zealand because of any democratic procedure but because of an accident of birth—she was born into the right family. We as New Zealanders, under this constitutional arrangement, are stuck with her “heirs and successors”, because heredity rules in that respect.

From a republican perspective, and even other perspectives, this leads to an inbuilt contradiction in the new oaths proposed in this bill for the people of New Zealand, be it the new citizenship oath or in the Parliamentary Oath that we as members of Parliament have to swear. Under the new and, I believe, improved oath, I am supposed to swear that I as an MP will “be loyal to New Zealand and will respect its democratic values and the rights and freedoms of its people”, which I am happy to do. But as far as I am concerned, this makes the oath internally contradictory. How can I possibly pledge loyalty to democratic values and at the same time declare loyalty to the Queen as a head of State, whose selection process is a complete denial of democratic values? There is simply no democratic selection process for our head of State. Queen Elizabeth is there only because she is the daughter of a particular human being—George Windsor.

Democracy should also involve public accountability, and there is no democratic public accountability system for the Queen or any proper democratic means of dismissing her. She is there for life, as are her heirs and successors, without there being any means of removal. Of course, the existence of this contradiction in the oath does not mean that all Greens would object to swearing allegiance to the Queen. Not all Greens are republicans, and we do not have an official party policy on republicanism or the monarchy. But we could easily have an oath like Australia’s in order to get out of the problem of making people swear to something they do not believe in, and devaluing the oath accordingly.

As members may know, I have a member’s bill, the Head of State Referenda Bill, in the ballot. If that bill is selected and we have the appropriate referenda and the monarchy is dispensed with, then that would remove the contradiction in the oath, as clearly that would have to be removed from the oath.

The essence of oaths should primarily be a loyalty to the people, the nation, and the law of the country. That is why I quite like the Australian and Jamaican oaths. In this respect I am a little concerned about the proposed police oath and armed forces oath in the bill. The police oath should be focused on the police upholding the law, whereas the emphasis is on serving Her Majesty and the reference to the law is a little too indirect—that is, to “perform all the duties of the office of constable according to law.” The armed forces oath emphasises loyally obeying “all orders of Her (or His) Majesty, her (or his) heirs and successors, and of the officers set over me, …”. This is all about obeying orders, with no reference to loyalty to the people, nation, or laws of New Zealand, let alone to the “democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people.”, which is rightly in the citizenship oath and the Parliamentary Oath before us.

I think the select committee has a fair bit of work to do to remove the contradictions and the weaknesses in the oaths before us. We have made a step forward in the proposals, in getting away from some of the archaic language of the old English tradition, but I think we should have a simpler citizenship oath, along the lines of the Australian oath.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : McCarthyism is alive and well in New Zealand. Who would have thought it? Instead of reds under the bed, we have republicans under the bed. National Party members are searching for them, anywhere they can find them. I listened on the radio to the speeches given last night. I must say that the quality of the speeches was reflected in the fact that there was a bit of slurring, indicating that well-lubricated speakers were making speeches on this bill.

I know that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition has an important obligation to oppose anything the Government wants to do, but sometimes it goes to a ridiculous extent. I must say that the repetition I have been hearing, in speech after speech made by National Party members, shows the shallowness of their arguments in regard to this issue. Is there anything in this bill that we should be concerned about? United Future does not put it past the Government to be introducing PC changes, social engineering, and doing it underhandedly and surreptitiously. I looked at the words in the bill quite carefully, to see whether I could find anything there. I just cannot see it. There is nothing in these changes that could ever lead one to believe that somehow this is a big plot on the part of the Government to destroy the fabric of New Zealand society.

What objection can be taken to words like “I will be loyal to New Zealand.”, or I “will respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people.”? Yet somehow National does not want to see those new words added to the text. What is wrong with adding after the words “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second” the words “Queen of New Zealand”? For 150 years effectively that has been the situation. Although our oaths refer just to “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second” I think it is quite appropriate, 150 years later, to recognise that when we are talking about the Queen we are talking about the Queen of New Zealand, when we have a Queen who is Queen of other countries as well. I think it is important that we make it clear to people who are taking oaths that effectively the Queen they are providing loyalty to is the Queen of this country, not of England or other countries in the Commonwealth. So what is wrong with that?

What is wrong with a phrase that states: “I will be a faithful and diligent Councillor.”? How do National members see any problem with that, in terms of some sort of hidden motivation? Instead of the words “well and truly serve Her Majesty” we have the words “faithfully and diligently”. That is only modernising the language. The citizenship oath states: “I will be loyal to New Zealand, … and will respect the democratic values …”. Is not that what National Party members stand for? Or are we led to believe that they believe that pledging loyalty to democratic values is some sort of sinister plot? We are changing the wording, to say “faithfully and impartially serve”, and referring to the “people of the realm of New Zealand” in the Governor-General’s Oath. Certainly that is what we should be doing.

The Judicial Oath now asks judges to say that they will “act fairly and impartially, and do right to all people, without fear or favour, affection or ill will, …”. What is wrong with that? What hidden motivations are there in an oath that states that our judges will pledge themselves to act fairly and impartially, without fear or favour, affection, or ill will? In fact, one could argue that that should have been in the Judicial Oath years ago, because that is certainly what New Zealand citizens expect of their judges.

So all we see is a modernisation of the language. There are no hidden agendas. There is a modernisation, and a consistency of language across the various oaths. The problem, it appears, is that National members would have us believe that they do not like change. They like the archaic language. Richard Worth, in particular, likes the archaic language. Why should we not keep language in modern society that people do not understand, instead of replacing it with something that people will readily understand!

It is the same sort of approach National members took when we were speaking on the Evidence Bill. When I spoke about the need for fundamental reforms in the criminal justice system, to bring it into a form more befitting modern society, they wanted to bury it in the past. They want to clutch to our 18th century system. I admit there were a lot of very positive 18th and 19th century reforms of British justice. But as our society has changed over the years, it is important that we reflect on that and ask: “Is it the best system that we have?”, and that we are bold enough to make changes.

The problem with National Party members is that they are so fixated in their historical perspective, they do not want change, they are scared of change. They are scared of looking at and improving the system we have had, to make it far more acceptable to New Zealanders.

I welcome also in this bill the fact that we are to have te reo text. Māori is an official language in New Zealand. The language is unique to New Zealand, despite also sharing similarities with languages of Pacific Islands as far as Rapanui. But we need to be proud of the Māori language. I think it is very important to have in an Act of Parliament oaths that are in te reo and that are the official version of those oaths. We do not then depend on somebody who wants to speak te reo making his or her own interpretation and Māori version of the oath. It is important that there is consistency and that in so far as we want to promote and endorse te reo, and increase its usage and recognition in New Zealand, it is important we make provision for that. That is what this bill does. It is a very welcome move.

I find that the opposition to this bill is far-fetched, to the point of being ridiculous. Trying to find republicans under the bed, in this McCarthyism that I see happening in National’s vain attempt to try to make some sort of logical opposition to this bill—simply because it has a duty to oppose anything the Government does—is being taken to poor extremes. United Future is very happy with the changes that have been made. We are quite happy to support them. We are not lapdogs. We are guide dogs.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I am very pleased to take a call on the Oaths Modernisation Bill. I think that the speaker who has just resumed his seat has totally lost the point. It is all very well for him to stand and say that United Future members are not lapdogs; he should say that to the country. Where are that member and his party registering in the polls? In the zone where people see that party as the lapdog of the Government. So he should think about that.

I do find, though, that I am in total agreement with my colleague the honourable Dr Wayne Mapp, of course. This bill is totally unnecessary. The speaker before me started to go through the various oaths, and asked what on earth can be wrong with this, that, and the other. I ask him what the point is. Why do we need to say Queen of New Zealand, when all New Zealanders know that she is the Queen of England? Formally she might be the Queen of New Zealand, but we do not think of her as that. She is the Queen of England. Māori people, more than anybody, understand that notion. It was the Queen of England whom we signed the Treaty of Waitangi with, and it is still the Queen of England whom we look to if we think we can get some redress from her.

The United Future member can go through all those particular rights that are set out in the bill and ask what the harm is in them, but we ask what their point is.

That brings me to the points that my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp raised. First of all, these changes are totally unnecessary. They do not add to, or detract from, anything. There is ultimate meaning in the oaths as they are. There is absolutely no need to change them. New Zealanders will not feel any more or less committed—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Most people out there are crying out for it!

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I have to disagree with my colleague Maurice Williamson. I do not think New Zealanders are crying out for the oaths to be changed. By and large, most New Zealanders rely on tradition. There is nothing like tradition to provide stability in a democracy. Again, Māori certainly realise that. I cannot say that for anyone else, because I do not presume to speak for anyone else, but I certainly know what it is that Māori deem important. Tradition is totally important, and tradition is vitally important in oaths and allegiances. So there is the fact that this change is totally unnecessary.

The second issue is that this legislation is part of the Government’s agenda for creeping republicanism. I agree with Dr Wayne Mapp—again—when he says that at least Jim Bolger, an avowed republican, put republicanism on the table in 1995. He did so, much to the unhappiness of a lot of National Party members; he put it on the table and said that one day we must start debating the issue. That was the right thing to do. Mark Peck is absolutely wrong when he says that it is not the right thing to do—that the point of the process is not to put the issue on the table. It absolutely is the point. These things must be put on the table. They must be discussed by New Zealanders, not just by a coterie of Labour Party left-wing socialist people who have their own little discussions in their own little rooms and decide that New Zealand will go down the path of republicanism, and that they do not need to tell the public of New Zealand. That is the difference between Labour and this side of the House. We have put things on the table. We recognise when it is the right of New Zealanders to discuss these things—unlike the Government, which, as a typical socialist Government, thinks it knows best.

The third point is that, as my colleague said, this bill has been put forward to condition the people to, and groom them for, the idea of republicanism. I have to agree with him totally—absolutely.

Stephen Franks: They are like paedophiles—they groom.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Gosh! I am not going to say that, but there is more than a hint of grooming in this bill. Why would the Government put it forward unless for the purpose of lulling New Zealanders into a sense that it is OK and that they will go along with it? I warn New Zealanders who may be listening tonight that if they give this Government a third term—[Interruption] They are all listening; they love listening to this House. I warn them that if this Government gets a third term, we will be on the pathway to republicanism. This Government—given its conduct in abolishing reference to the Privy Council, and abolishing Queen’s Counsel, knighthoods, and so on—will put us on that pathway because it thinks it has a God-given right to do such things without having the public of New Zealand behind it.

The Government thinks this is a discreet little bill, but, funnily enough, it could be the Government’s undoing. It could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It is PC nonsense. What Māori person out there said: “We need you to make sure there are translations of the oath.”? Who said that? Who asked for it?

Stephen Franks: Tame Iti!

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No, Tame Iti would not do that. Who asked for it? What Māori person asked for it? Nobody asked for it. Was Tariana Turia—whom I know members opposite love to hear us talk about—debarred from taking the oath in Māori when she was sworn in? I do not think so. Was she? [Interruption] I do not think so, either. And since her taking the oath in 1996, a number of Māori have walked up to the Speaker’s Chair and taken the oath in Māori. So what is the purpose of this PC nonsense? Māori is an official language of New Zealand. [Interruption] Steve Chadwick and Ruth Dyson should listen to this.

Steve Chadwick: Georgina!

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Steve Chadwick—a good Māori name, from Tūwharetoa and the Hawke’s Bay. Māori is an official language of New Zealand. We do not need to state in legislation that Tariana Turia can now take the oath in Māori. What a lot of rubbish!

I agree with my colleague totally, for those three reasons. The bill is totally unnecessary. [Interruption] I hear Mr Jim Peters commenting. Does that mean New Zealand First will vote against this bill, too? I know that New Zealand First likes tradition, too. Winston Peters is a traditionalist, so I hope New Zealand First will vote against this bill, as well. Tradition gives consistency and stability. Bringing things up to date? What a lot of nonsense! The meaning is not changed whatsoever. Bowing to Māori? Does the Government think it will hold the Māori seats with this? If so, it can think again, because it will not. It should think on that.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I feel thoroughly inspired after that ringing speech. One does not often come to the House not knowing which way one is going to vote, deciding instead to listen to the quality of the arguments before making up one’s mind. On this bill, I think I will have to leave everyone hanging on my decision.

I will just run through some of the arguments as they appeared. The first thing that struck me is that one simply cannot imagine what possible purpose is served by putting this bill forward. Of all the issues facing New Zealand—of all the matters for which we could use the $80,000 an hour or so that it takes to run this place—we occupy ourselves by replacing the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully” in the oath of the Auditor-General. That is an odd one. Come to think of it, what does the Government mean by taking an “honest” Auditor-General and making him a “faithful” Auditor-General?

Dr Wayne Mapp: It sounds like a lapdog.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I think it sounds like lapdog language. I wonder whether United Future had something to do with that change. One can quite easily be an honest Auditor-General, but to be a faithful Auditor-General one has to be faithful to someone. Faithful to whom? It is a bit of a worry. At first I thought the change was quite innocuous, but now that I look at those words and try to work out what it could mean to use parliamentary time at $80,000 an hour for however many hours it takes to change “honestly” for “faithfully”, I am not so sure. That same change has been carried through to the oath for the environment commissioners. At the moment the environment commissioners have to carry out their duties “honestly”. In future they will have to carry out their duties “faithfully”. [Interruption] It does seem a little sinister, yes.

Another change—and I think it was the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who drew this to the House’s attention—is the attempt to curry favour through political correctness by including all these oaths in another official language. I do not know whether members are aware that we are about to have yet another official language inflicted on us. Mouldering in the Justice and Electoral Committee is a bill to make New Zealand Sign Language another official language. Just imagine! How does one take an oath in Sign Language? Who can tell whether one is doing so honestly? I am disappointed in the Government that it does these politically correct things but has given no indication of how one takes an oath in sign language. I am quite sure that if one official language has an oath, then those who use another official language have every right to demand an oath in their language too, whatever it is.

I come back to possibly a slightly more significant point. For us to replace the words “fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen” with the words “respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people” is not innocuous. That is a significant change. When one fulfils one’s duties as a New Zealand citizen, it is perhaps reasonably straightforward to understand that there is a duty to obey the law. There is a duty to turn up for military service, if a law is passed to say that one must. There is a duty to assist the police if called upon, although they so rarely call upon citizens these days. But what does it mean to “respect the democratic values of New Zealand”? I can respect the Catholic church but still decide to pay absolutely no regard to its teachings. I can respect it as a religion, but that does not mean I have fulfilled the duties laid down on Catholics. I think that this is a deliberate attempt to take away what is currently a duty and replace it with words that mean nothing. The Government is disguising that. That oath is a citizenship oath. It is the oath that states to immigrants that they should recognise that they are changing their allegiance and changing the persons to whom they owe duties. Instead, we are taking that concept out of our oath and replacing it with the weasel word “respect”.

I also have a lot of curiosity about what the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are. Let us assume that an immigrant—some poor refugee—has come here from North Korea, and that he wants to know what the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are. Well, the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are, according to Helen Clark, whatever she says they are. That will feel pretty familiar to a refugee from North Korea and to someone who has come from Iraq. Those people will be familiar with countries where the rights and freedoms of the people depend on the ruler from time to time. Why do we not have something that swears to uphold the freedoms we have inherited—the freedoms under the law as it stands at the time—not the rights and freedoms that this Government decides to leave to New Zealanders? We see in almost every Act that this Parliament passes a further erosion or removal of rights and freedoms. The oath is meaningless as it stands, and it has done virtually nothing to increase what it should be increasing, which is the obligation taken on by immigrants. That is the third point.

Why are we tinkering with the words of oaths when this Government does not bother to enforce the obligations that they are intended to create? How many prosecutions are there for perjury these days? How often do we find that someone who has sworn a false oath, borne false witness, or lied on oath has paid a heavy price? The ACT party has had a consistent policy for as long as I have been in this Parliament that it would make the penalties for suborning justice—lying on oath—as severe as the penalties the person has tried to avoid by lying. One of the bills that is waiting on the Order Paper while this drivel is being brought forward tinkers with the penalties for perverting the course of justice. Possibly it will not even get through before the Government decides to call an election. Meanwhile, we are wasting the time of this House in dealing with the form of the oaths without looking at the substance of them. The House should really be considering the consequences of lying by people in official positions, or in positions where they have promised not to lie. I can see why this Government may be a little sensitive about cranking up penalties for lying. It is quite a sensitive issue.

Peter Brown: Tell us about it.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I will not go into that. Others in the House have put plenty of time into it. But I certainly cannot understand why we have an entire bill devoted to the wording of oaths without a word about the consequences of making false oaths. Nothing in this bill states what would happen to an immigrant who, for example, swore a false oath to uphold the democratic values of New Zealand. For example, do the democratic values of New Zealand include the right to maintain allegiance to another power? Many countries in their citizenship oath ask people to make their primary duty to the new country. Some require people to swear that the country is their only allegiance and to give up other allegiances.

Peter Brown: I agree with that.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I say to Peter Brown that I do, too. I certainly believe that when people come to New Zealand and want the privilege of citizenship, then they have to recognise that they become New Zealanders and that New Zealand must be their primary allegiance. There should be none of this monkeying around. I do not know why the Government does not require immigrants to become citizens before they can vote. We treat our citizenship so lightly and cheaply. The Government is prepared to spend the time of this House on tinkering with words to make them more confusing and more vague, and it does not want to look at the substance of the obligations that the words are supposed to create.

I have mentioned the replacement of the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully”. I am concerned too that nothing in the bill explains just when an obligation is imposed by oath, or why we choose to require oaths for some offices and not for others. For example, the medical profession in this country is laden down with gatekeeper roles. It is given all sorts of responsibilities that can mean a yes or a no to the eligibility of people to get treatments, to get benefits, to stay at home to work, or to get out of trouble. Yet, as I understand it, we have nothing that doctors have to swear to when they accept and get those high privileges, or that onerous duty. Why do we have an oath for special constables when we do not have one for other people, such as doctors? I thank members for their attention.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : I come from, I guess, a more moderate view. I truly and openly declare that I believe that the nation will become a republic over time. I am very happy to admit that I think that while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne, we should pay the true homage we owe to her. She has been a great lady, and I have no intention of rarking up that debate while she is on the throne. But her time will come to an end, as it does for us all.

It is at that point that I think New Zealanders will turn very quickly to saying that they do not want the firstborn male of a woman from a nation on the other side of the world, which bears no resemblance to our Kiwi nation, to be their head of State. That is my view. I think we will find another way. There is a lot of debate about whether we will have an elected, appointed, or—in the case of Helen Clark—self-appointed president of the nation, but, in the end, I am very happy to say that a New Zealand republic will be the case.

We may need to look at changing some of the wording of oaths, because currently we refer to “Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors,” and, of course, that would change if it became “His”. I am sure that a lot of feminists, especially those on the Labour side of the House, must find it galling to think that three or four daughters in a row could be born and not one of them would qualify, but that, suddenly, if a bloke is born, he is in. I agree with the feminists. I think it is just a nuts system; it is part of an anachronism from the past.

I ask the members of this House, and I ask them to answer me honestly, how many people stop them in the street, run after them, chase them, try to grab the hem of their garments, and say to them: “Mr Williamson!”—or whatever their particular name and electorate is, such as Mr Gallagher from Hamilton West—“You’ve got to change the Oaths and Declarations Act of 1957!”. Honestly? How many times have they had to run through a supermarket door and hide out in the meat section while the crowds gather, demanding that they give them an answer on the Oaths and Declarations Act? There has been not a mutter, not a murmur, and not a whisper from a single member in this Chamber. That is because the general public do not care. This is irrelevant.

If this is the biggest issue this Parliament has to deal with, we should just prorogue it tonight—close it down, shut it up, and walk. Because there are things about delivery of health care, and delivery of education—

Jill Pettis: I had someone from the JPs association saying this was good.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I want to tell the listening audience out there—and I am still talking to my devoted drive time audience in Auckland, because it is only 10 past 9 and they will still be working their way home, because of the roading system—that Jill Pettis, the member for Whanganui heard from one person. So we now know how Labour sets its priorities—according to whether the senior Government whip gets a call from one person. Here is my challenge to all the Whanganui listeners tonight: “Call Jill Pettis with whatever your favourite issue is, and you’ll have a bill in Parliament in no time, because one person in Whanganui is the only person”—[Interruption] Jill Pettis is the only taker I have had from this entire House tonight. I ask members to look at all those other Labour members. They are sitting over there embarrassed beyond belief that this House’s time is being taken up with a pathetic piece of legislation—

Jill Pettis: Sit down, you’ve finished.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No, no, I will not sit down. Jill Pettis wants me to sit down. Actually, is not Wednesday night that member’s night for elocution lessons?

Jill Pettis: It is, but I finished early.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well, she should be at those lessons. She desperately needs to pick them up.

I want to say that what we have has served us well. One day it will change, but it will change when we have quite a constitutional shift in the head of State, and there is a long, long way to go before we get there—a long, long way. I am happy to can this debate now. I would sit down—take my chair right now—if the senior Government whip would say that we will move to one of the other items on the Order Paper.

Let us look at the Order Paper and see what we think would be something worth debating. Let my colleagues help me on this. Goodness me, when I look at the Order Paper I do not see very much worth moving to.

Dr Richard Worth: No. 19!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No. 19 is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. No, I do not think so. My colleague Richard Worth is from Epsom, where trout is a big issue, but most of us do not “trout on” as much as he does on these matters. I thought he would have pulled up the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill quite quickly. In fact, this whole Order Paper looks full of rubbish—absolute rubbish. But I want to make this clear to just the few people left with their crystal sets tuned in. We are sitting here going through a bill that is to amend the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.

Steve Chadwick: It is called tidying things up.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Oh, well, now Steve Chadwick has just leapt into the fray!

Dr Richard Worth: Who was that?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: That was the member for—

Dr Richard Worth: Taupo?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No.

Dr Richard Worth: Well, wanting to be the member for Taupo?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well, whatever—I think she is a list MP. But her name is “Steve”. It is a “boy called Steve”, and she says: “We’re wanting to tidy things up.” This is the tidy-mind syndrome. Do not members just love it? I can tell members that down at the Prospect pub in Howick every night, everybody is saying: “Do you know what the Government has to do? It has to get in and tidy up the Oaths and Declarations Act because I am sick of how messy it is. Every time I go home at night after a few beers, the missus and I sit down and we read through that Oaths and Declarations Act, and we do not know what it means.” So Steve Chadwick has the affront and the gall—[Interruption] We know that Jill Pettis had one person front her.

Jill Pettis: He was a Tory!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: OK, even Tories can get things wrong, and whoever this one person was he got it wrong. Steve Chadwick will always be a list MP if she is going to go out there with a tidy-mind syndrome about tidying up an Act that has no relevance and is of no value at all.

I looked through the clauses, and, to be quite frank, I do not think the average Kiwi five-eighth punters out in television land, after reading some of this stuff—especially when they get to each clause and look at the Māori form of it—will have a clue. I mean, how bad does political correctness have to get with some of this stuff? The one thing I find just amazing is our passports. Guess what we did with our passports some years ago? We made one whole page, opposite the English page, in Māori. Here is a question for members. Where does one use a passport? The answer is everywhere overseas—everywhere. So I thought, right! When I arrived at Kai Tak Airport I went straight up to the little Chinaman there and said: “Excuse me, pal, how fluent are you in te reo?”. He looked at me and said: “We’ll put you in jail if you speak to us like that.” He did not have a clue what it was. We have this political correctness. Although I think the Māori language should be honoured in certain locations, and in certain forms, a passport is not it.

It is a little bit like the two-page advertisement I saw for the new Commissioner of Inland Revenue. There was one whole page in English and one whole page in Māori. If a person can be skilled enough, talented enough, and qualified enough to be the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, but cannot speak English, that person should not be getting the job no matter how good he or she is. I know that the Government has even had to wheel the interpreter in here so he can pick up on some of this. But I say to him: “Rest easy, you will not need it.” With every one of these oaths and declarations, and so on, we have gone to lunatic lengths.

This bill will be seen by the public as political correctness gone mad. That is coming from someone who truly believes that one day this nation will be a republic. But it will not be a republic under terms and conditions of the feminist hard-core left socialists who have decided that it will be their view and nobody else’s—and no list member called “Steve” is ever going to tell me that a tidy-mind syndrome is how we should run the Government of this nation.

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) , on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Oaths Modernisation Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committeereferred to Government Administration Committee

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. I propose that this bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. An effective and accessible court system is a fundamental part of any democratic society. It provides citizens with the confidence of knowing that justice is being delivered and that the rule of law is being applied by the courts. In order to achieve public confidence, it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the courts remain effective and accessible to the people of New Zealand.

Achieving a court system that encourages public confidence requires a number of conditions to be present. Those conditions include timely and fair court procedures. The courts need to be responsive to the needs and expectations of the public. However, to be responsive and timely the courts need sufficient court resources to deal with the mounting workload they face. This bill is aimed at helping the court system, in particular the Court of Appeal, to remain responsive and timely by alleviating the increasing workload pressures of the Court of Appeal, as well as effective and accessible by increasing access to New Zealand’s final appellate court, the Supreme Court.

This bill is in two parts. The first part deals with issues relating to the Court of Appeal and its workload. The second part covers issues arising from the establishment of the Supreme Court, and some technical amendments. The Court of Appeal is, and will continue to be, New Zealand’s principal appellate court. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than at the Supreme Court. Its role of error correction and development of the law will continue, especially in those cases that do not raise any significant public issue and thus do not warrant a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal is facing heavy workload pressures. These pressures exist in criminal appeals due to recent legislative changes and in civil appeals, which are becoming more complex. The result is that a growing number of appeals are waiting to be heard. Without additional judges this trend is predicted to continue, leading to negative impacts on timeliness and a corresponding erosion of justice. The last increase in the number of permanent Court of Appeal judges occurred in 1987. The bill will provide for up to two additional judges to be appointed to the Court of Appeal, increasing the maximum number of permanent Court of Appeal judges from seven to nine, including the President of the Court of Appeal. The increase will help ease the escalating workload of the Court of Appeal, ensuring continued timely access to justice. This relief will give the Court of Appeal sufficient time and opportunity to give adequate consideration to the complex issues before it.

The bill also provides for a more efficient use of judicial resources to further aid the Court of Appeal in facing its demanding workload. Some flexibility will be introduced into the way in which the Court of Appeal judgments can be delivered. The relevant provision in the Act is currently interpreted by the courts as requiring judgments to be delivered by any two judges of the Court of Appeal in an open court. This requirement takes up the valuable time of the judges, especially when a judgment is delivered to an empty courtroom. Currently, both the Supreme Court and the High Court are able to deliver their judgments in open court or through the registrar. The Court of Appeal does not have this flexibility. The bill will bring the practice of the Court of Appeal into line with the Supreme Court and the High Court, enabling the manner in which judgments can be delivered to be determined by the court rules.

Increased access to the Supreme Court is achieved under Part 2. The path to the Supreme Court from decisions of inferior courts has been limited by the decision of the High Court being considered final, unless leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted. If the Court of Appeal allows an appeal, the Court of Appeal’s decision is substituted for the High Court’s decision and is final. This finality means that there is no opportunity for a further appeal beyond the Court of Appeal. The bill will remove this limitation, enabling parties to seek leave to appeal a High Court decision on appeal from an inferior court either to the Court of Appeal or, in exceptional circumstances, to the Supreme Court directly—and I am sure that Mr Worth will see this as a very, very worthy amendment.

Part 2 also contains two amendments of a technical nature. A reference to the Privy Council in section 65 is removed, and section 68, which refers to “inferior courts of extended jurisdiction”, is repealed as such courts have not existed in New Zealand since 1913—which is about the time Mr Worth entered law school. The amendments in the bill will help to ensure that the New Zealand court system remains effective and accessible to all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : I am grateful for the flattering comments that the previous speaker made about me, but I would just like to say, in a measured, quiet way, that this bill is a gross abuse of parliamentary process. Why do I say that? The reason is that this bill is to be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As you know, Mr Assistant Speaker, as other members of Parliament know, and as the people in the crowded public gallery know, Parliament has subject select committees.

Bills are referred to these so-called subject select committees based on the knowledge they have. We have, as one of those committees, the Justice and Electoral Committee, which deals with issues relating to the very questions in this bill. But what is the Government going to do? The Government is to refer this bill to the Government Administration Committee. I do not know who outside this House knows what the Government Administration Committee does. But let me just say what it does do. The green book I am holding up at the moment, the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, states, under Standing Order 188, that the Government Administration Committee is responsible for “civil defence, cultural affairs, fitness, sport and leisure, internal affairs, Pacific Island Affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet, racing, services to Parliament, State services, statistics, tourism, women’s affairs and youth affairs”.

So how come this bill, which is all about judges and judicial administration, is being referred to a committee that knows nothing about this area—a committee that has no skill and is not interested in the very issues this bill is about?

Behind me is Lindsay Tisch, who is a hard-working and very conscientious member of Parliament.

Lindsay Tisch: But not a lawyer.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: As he said, sadly, he is not a lawyer. Yet he is to be burdened with looking at the merits of this legislation—legislation that I would say is completely without merit.

Do members know why all of this has come about? The reason is that at the moment, in this most curious set-up that characterises the Labour Government, three people are responsible for the delivery of the justice portfolio. The first, obviously, is Rick Barker, a trade unionist from the East Coast. He knows nothing about justice. We have Philip Goff, who is a political scientist, and we have Michael Cullen, who is an economic history teacher. In a way, that says it all. Something that is really important, that is all about judicial administration and access to justice, is to go to a select committee that knows absolutely nothing about those issues.

So what is the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) about? Why does National oppose this bill so strongly? It is not a big bill.It is only a few pages long—in fact, it has only eight sections—yet it is seen as somehow really important. Is that not bizarre, when there is a whole lot of material that is really important for Parliament to get through before this sick and dying Government is finally disposed of? Why are we bothering with this at the moment?

This bill is about three things. First, it is about increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal. I have said, and I have been oft quoted on this issue, that the judges of the Court of Appeal are workhorses. I am in no doubt at all that they are under incredible pressure. I have said that the workhorses of the Court of Appeal can be contrasted with the show ponies of the Supreme Court. Those in the Supreme Court sit indolently, waiting for cases to come to them. Those in the Court of Appeal work determinedly in a setting of confraternity. The first thing this bill does is increase the number of judges in the Court of Appeal. I suppose one would say that the second thing is a minor point, if one did not really reflect on what justice is all about.

The second thing is that the requirement for Court of Appeal decisions to be given in open court has been removed. At the moment the judges of the Court of Appeal give a short summary of their reasons in open court. They do not want to do that. I find that a bit odd. These are full-time justice employees. There is no reason, where their place of business is the Court of Appeal, that they cannot front up when they have worked hard and determinedly on their decisions, to give their decisions in summary form in the Court of Appeal. The Government has decided that privilege should be taken away from them. That is a sadness. I have always believed, as Justice Brandeis said many years ago in the United States Supreme Court, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, that there is an overwhelming need in matters relating to justice that issues should be openly decided and decisions given in an open way. This Government is running away from that. It is unnecessary. It is wrong in principle.

The third issue relates to allowing District Court decisions to be appealed to the Supreme Court. That is a bit of a change. We have a hierarchy of courts in New Zealand. We have the District Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. This plan is to allow decisions of the District Court to go through all of those tiers. The received wisdom around the world in Western democracies is that there should be two rights of appeal only. Yet this Government, for no good reason, and with the significant added burden of cost, is planning that these additional rights of appeal be given. Why would it do that? What does Russell Fairbrother think? He is a competent criminal lawyer who has been overlooked in the present Parliament—a man who has something to offer, but has been muzzled in an utterly unfair way, and who has been made the lackey of the Attorney-General; an Attorney-General who has no legal qualifications at all.

Only once in our whole history have we ever had an Attorney-General who was not legally qualified. That was from 1932 to 1933. The then Prime Minister temporarily assumed that particular position. Dr Cullen has apparently decided that he wants to be the Attorney-General. Without any legal training at all, he wants to be the chief legal officer. I have a real problem with that stance. [Interruption] We are about to lose a Minister from the House, and we are about to lose a quorum. No, we are not. The Minister has glided from one position to another, to be with his close friends in United Future.

I say to the Minister, and I hope he listens, that the Government’s response to issues of court administration, and problems with court administration, has been simply to appoint new judges. We should resist that, because judges are there to try to decide cases. They are not there to be sucked into the minutiae of court administration. Mr Barker does not know that. Why would he? Why would a trade union official from the East Coast have any sense of these issues at all? I am watching the Minister as I address these words to him. I see the glint in his eyes as he tries to respond to what I am saying. Why would the Minister not see the inherent truth in this argument? What has happened over the years, over a period of successive Governments, is that the civil service career of court administration in the ministry has been made unattractive. The answer, I say to Mr Barker, the East Coast trade union official, is not to create more judges. Instead, it is to improve the system; to create pathways and a career for court officials that is worthwhile.

• Debate interrupted.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : We are talking about the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3), and the main aim of this bill is to amend the Judicature Act 1908 in order to alleviate workload pressures on the Court of Appeal, and to increase access to the final appellate court, the Supreme Court of New Zealand. I think that the Minister gave a very good overview of the bill.

I have taken a call tonight as I was a little concerned that the previous speaker was casting aspersions on the ability of the Government Administration Committee to hear this bill. I think I know that member’s colleague Lindsay Tisch better than he does, and I assure the previous speaker that even though Lindsay Tisch is in that member’s own caucus, and even though I do not agree with Lindsay Tisch’s politics—frankly, I do not agree with a number of his views on life—I have to say that Lindsay Tisch, as a good Waikato MP, is more than capable of considering this bill.

The role of Parliament is not just to leave that consideration—dare I say it—to members who have a legal background, to members of the legal fraternity. I mean no disrespect, because I acknowledge right now that the previous speaker, in terms of his legal career, is certainly very accomplished. I acknowledge that; I do not take that away from him, at all. I pay his career considerable respect, but I say that lay people should be perfectly able to consider this bill.

Lindsay Tisch is a good example of a lay person, and he is a good example of a solid Waikato person. Even my whip Jill Pettis would agree with that. So I believe that the Government Administration Committee is more than capable—

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but it is very hard to hear on this side of the House. I would like to know whether the member said that Lindsay Tisch was a great Waikato MP. I think I heard him say that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): If the member is trying to clarify and get something set in his mind, I tell him that the member indeed did say that.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: The definition of Waikato is “great”. Anyone who works in the Waikato is great. Having said that, I say there is no doubt there are greater than the great—that is, Dianne Yates, Nanaia Mahuta, and Mark Burton. They are really super-great MPs,

Because when one comes from the Waikato, one has an appreciation of life. Even the Prime Minister comes from the Waikato. What I am saying, and I mean it with due respect to the previous speaker, is that I do not believe one has to have a strong legal background to grasp the importance of this bill. The Minister has adequately explained its importance, and I think the Government Administration Committee will do a very good job. Having said that, I say in tribute to the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth, that at least he has made a solid contribution to Parliament and to his constituency, unlike the pretender to the Epsom throne—the leader of the “2 Percent Party”. It will not surprise the previous speaker to know that I am putting money on the fact that he will probably be returned, unless there is a good Labour candidate to give him a run for his money. He will have nothing to worry about with regard to the leader of the “2 Percent Party”. Let me just state it so that it is crystal clear. I disagree with some of the contributions of the previous speaker, but I have to say that as the member for Epsom he has nothing to worry about from his so-called pretender, the leader of the “2 Percent Party”. I commend this bill and the Minister’s speech to Parliament and I assure the House that Lindsay Tisch is more than adequate to the task, along with members of the Government Administration Committee, of giving proper hearing and consideration to this bill.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I am sure that the honourable member made some reference to this bill in his speech, but I blinked and missed it.

Dr Richard Worth: It was a good speech.

PETER BROWN: Was it? He must have praised somebody in the National Party.

Many of my colleagues in New Zealand First, although we do not like to criticise members in this House, have grave reservations about the Government Administration Committee. It could not work out what an architect was. It did not have a clue. It took a Minister to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to tell the committee what an architect was. The committee got that wrong big time, so I do not know whether it will know what a judge is. Even the National member who is on the committee says that he has no clue about lawyers and law. Does he know what a judge is? I do not know.

New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee. We do not speak from a position that is qualified to know exactly whether we need more judges. I have to be honest—we do not know whether there is an absolute need for more judges, because we are not familiar with the routines of judges. My honourable colleague who is an accomplished lawyer is not available tonight, so I cannot seek his guidance. But we are prepared to support this bill because we know that the justice system needs more people. We know that we need more police and we know that we need more prison officers, so we have made an assumption at this point in time that we need more judges.

Opposition Members: No!

PETER BROWN: The members say no. A few moments ago I listened to the Hon Maurice Williamson. He was talking about the Oaths Modernisation Bill. It was a good speech. He asked how many times members have been lobbied on the Oaths Modernisation Bill. Specifically, they have not been lobbied terribly many times, but people have lobbied all my colleagues in New Zealand First from time to time on the commitment that immigrants have to make to this country.

Stephen Franks: So why did you vote for it?

PETER BROWN: Because we wanted to tidy it up. The honourable member has made some very worthwhile remarks, but by voting against it, he will never get it tidied up. By voting for it, we will get it tidied up by public submission.

I want to get back what the Hon Maurice Williamson said about lobbying. As far as I am aware, nobody has lobbied us about having more judges. But they have certainly lobbied us about having more police, and they have certainly lobbied us about a better deal for corrections officers, as more people are being brought in.

The Hon Maurice Williamson will be interested in this. The most lobbying that I personally have received in recent times is about roading. When Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport, he withheld the funds for roading. I have been told that Maurice Williamson did not have a clue when it came to administering the Ministry of Transport office. I was lobbied before I became an MP, and ever since I became an MP, on tidying up roads and on the funding for them.

Hon Member: It’s a long time.

PETER BROWN: But in that time, I have heard Don Brash and Maurice Williamson agree with New Zealand First’s policy. The members may have noticed that I have moved from judges on to roading, because I do not want to miss this opportunity. [Interruption] Members have noticed.

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a little concerned that the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) is really important legislation. Maybe the previous speaker has strayed into the issue of roading, which is not directly an issue in the eight clauses in this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I accept what you say, but I think he was trying to weave that theme into it. He has referred to the bill a number of times.

PETER BROWN: The point I was making is that the National Party, through the Hon Maurice Williamson—[Interruption] If the members sat here a little more quietly, they would hear, and they could make a worthwhile point of order. National Party members have tried to establish a criteria for whether or not to have a bill by basing that decision on how many people lobby for it. But thousands—if not millions—of people have lobbied for roading and those members did nothing. So one cannot necessarily base legislation on people’s lobbying.

I do not have the expertise to say whether we need more judges. But the question comes to mind that, if we are short of judges, why the dickens did we create the Supreme Court, which created a need for more judges? It seems a bit ludicrous to create another court to create more jobs for the boys—for judges. But, having done that, and knowing that we are dreadfully short of police officers and prison officers one can conclude that, in all likelihood, we need more judges.

Hon Member: And roads.

PETER BROWN: I am glad that the roading issue has made an impression on the member’s mind, because we may well receive some positive support from the member.

This is a short bill. I have doubts whether the Government Administration Committee will do it justice, but I guess the committee cannot go far off the track on a bill that is only two pages long. One would hope that its members will apply their talents with some degree of diligence and conscientiousness, and report back a bill that positively addresses the concerns of New Zealand in that regard. New Zealand First will support the bill going to a select committee.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I hope that by getting in before United Future members I might be able to give them a lead towards a policy that would enable them to distinguish themselves from their masters before it is too late; before the election is upon them and they have not done a thing to show people why they exist.

Hon Member: They’ll be gone!

STEPHEN FRANKS: Yes. The polls will tell in the end. The Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) is another strange bill. There is a whole raft of these curious little bills involving matters that—in this case—are not entirely trivial. But it is certainly mysterious that they have come up at this time, when they have been talked about for so long. In fact, I think we were lobbied 3 or 4 years ago to increase the number of the judges for this purpose.We said that we were not necessarily opposed to it but that we did not want it to slide through, either in a provision that simply allowed the Minister to increase the number of judges—that was the first request from the Attorney-General; I think, while the Hon Margaret Wilson was still Attorney-General—or in a Statutes Amendment Bill, as a matter of no importance, which was the second proposal.

In fact, the number of judges is very important. It is constitutionally important that Parliament decides whether to increase the number of judges. Rulers may want to exert executive influence—they may want to put pressure on judges or to decide court decisions—without an open usurping of the judicial role. If too many judges are appointed, and if it is made sure that the chief judge is a mate, then the chief judge can have a very heavy influence on what happens, by deciding which judge gets to decide a case. This “picking horses for courses” is one of the reasons why Parliament should keep control of the number of judges. Parliament gave that up, in the legislation that created the Supreme Court, or in the legislation at that time, because they gave the Attorney-General the power to create a whole lot of part-time judges. Those part-time judges are subject to the very influence that our constitution tried to protect our judges from—that is, the need to please a boss, the need to make sure that whoever is calling the shots on the allocation of cases or work is favourable to them. The problem with part-time judges is that if they want to live off their part-time employment or if it is important to them, they need to be called upon. The problem with the situation that this Parliament allowed to be created, at the request of the Labour Government and supported by United Future, is that we now have the possibility of having a large number of part-time judges beholden to whoever is allocating cases, because of their income needs. ACT said that this was a constitutional issue; the Government and United Future did not.

Now we have an increase in the number of Court of Appeal judges. I do not believe that this is necessary, and I am very glad to have an opportunity to debate the issue in this Parliament. The reason I think it is quite unnecessary is that the judges have not looked at the end point of what has been happening for the last 40 years. In my working lifetime, the number of judges has increased at nine times the rate of the increase in population. This country is consuming itself in lawyers. This country is turning decisions that used to be matters of courtesy or morality, and matters of common-sense decisions by authorities, into decisions that allow lawyers and judges to second-guess endlessly.

Judges have been a big part of that. If we read a modern judgment we see that judges go through pages and pages of facts, hoping that some result will flop out without their having simply to adhere to or lay down the law. When I started in practice, a very long case would have taken a week. These days, a week is the length of time taken for a trivial—or near-trivial—case. I should not exaggerate. Although I know that judges are working very hard, very honestly, and very diligently, I believe that they should be looking at themselves. My concerns about perversion of the courts are concerns about what could happen, not what I believe is happening with our courts at the moment. But I believe that judges should be looking at this issue of overload and asking themselves whether the huge increase in the legalisation of New Zealand society is not something to do with us, as well as something to do with the triumph of the nanny State “we know best” arrogance of the left.

I think that judges are partly responsible. I think, for example, of the Court of Appeal’s workload, and it is the Court of Appeal we are looking at in this legislation. The Court of Appeal’s workload, I think, comprises nearly two-thirds criminal appeals. Well, of course there will be criminal appeals when the Court of Appeal tinkers with sentences. When the Court of Appeal alters an 8-year sentence by 1 year, to 7 years, instead of changing the sentence only when there is a manifestly major fault by the lower court, every lawyer who has a criminal defendant is going to say, in good faith: “We’d better give it a go.”They will tinker, and say: “Let’s have a crack at it.”

Secondly, the Court of Appeal never uses the obvious remedy for overwork, which is to make itself a bit more unattractive. When the judges of the Court of Appeal in Britain or the German Supreme Court get a meritless appeal they let the person who brought the meritless appeal know, by increasing the sentence. They do not necessarily impose a direct increase. They simply hold that the period spent on appeal does not count off the sentence. Now there is an incentive for every lawyer to stop wasting time. There is an incentive for every appellant not to waste the time of the court. If an appellant fails his or her case and therefore the sentence will include the period spent on appeal, he or she will not waste the court’s time. Has the New Zealand Court of Appeal tried anything like that? It has the power to do so. No. In fact, it goes the opposite way. If the judges think a case is so bad they might increase the sentence of someone who has brought an appeal on spurious grounds, they warn counsel that they might be thinking of increasing it and invite counsel to withdraw the appeal. I believe that that is pathetic.

I do not have any confidence that anyone on the Government Administration Committee is capable of sending this bill back to the Government and saying: “Think about it.” With all due respect, it needs brainstorming. It needs half a dozen lawyers. Although the public may be suspicious of lawyers, that is what it needs. This bill should be sent to a committee that can say to the Government and to the Court of Appeal: “Hey, think about why there’s an overload. Then come back and tell us whether you think more judges are needed.” I suspect that the committee will come back and say that more judges are needed.

The Supreme Court, I believe, has had 18 cases so far. Judging by what it costs—and I am not talking about the set-up costs—the annual cost of the Court of Appeal means it costs $350,000 per case, and that is before any lawyers’ charges. When we did the work on the Supreme Court we were told it would be a cheap option, and that it would make it easier for New Zealanders. It has not been. Also, the Supreme Court took the best clerks and the staff, and then sat there for at least half a year, leaving the Court of Appeal working their butts off without the staff, who were sitting, twiddling their thumbs at the Supreme Court.

There has been a whole lot of bad management here, and this Government is responsible for it, just as it is responsible for bad management throughout. Now that we are coming up to an election, what does the Government do? It throws resources at it. Here, we are throwing extra judges at the court without looking at why we are overloaded with lawyers and legalism. We need to look at the law and at the responsibility this House has for cumbersome, unwieldy sentences that do not make sense, and words that no one knows the meaning of, that force people into lodging appeals. We need to look at the way the judges have been using their powers, and not using their powers, in order to cut down on their workload. The 450-odd criminal appeals could easily have been cut probably to a fifth of that number, if judges had simply used their power to say that when some meritless appeal is fostered, whether by the offender or by the lawyer, there will be a cost.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : One may well ask why we need more judges, as the ACT member has done. The short answer, of course, is that we have more crime, new crimes, more disputes, and more conflict in our society. The principal reason for all that is the breakdown of ethical standards. There has been a breakdown of community; a breakdown of enforcement of ethical standards, by peer pressure in our community; the alienation of our communities; and the demise of the Church in its role of setting standards. This has come about partly because of abrogation on the part of the Church and partly by the Government usurping the role of the Church in setting standards.

This Government has replaced traditional Judaeo-Christian standards with a liberal, laissez-faire doctrine, and as a result we have seen a breakdown of the family, a breakdown of law and order, and a breakdown of community relationships. It is no wonder that we have more crime.

• Debate interrupted.