Tariana Turia said that the Māori Party was right to restore access to the courts. The ACT Party agrees with her, and always has, and the members of the Māori Party know that. Tariana Turia also said that the ACT Party used the lodging of questions to members this afternoon to try to delay this bill. Tariana was right; we did do that. The reason we did that is we oppose this bill and we think this bill is wrong. We think this bill is wrong for the reasons I will summarise very shortly. However, Tariana Turia said that the ACT Party had used this legislation to denigrate tangata whenua. With respect, that is where I disagree with her, because we have not deliberately gone out of our way to do that. We have fought for the rights of all New Zealanders and Māori New Zealanders to have the right to their day in court and to have the right to access. But we have not gone out of our way to denigrate tangata whenua.

Tariana Turia said that the ACT Party had used this bill to try to create divisions. I also totally reject that. We have not used this bill to try to create division. In actual fact, we believe this bill will create division, and that is one of the reasons we so strongly oppose it. Why do I say that? A number of rights created here will be of benefit only to those who gain customary title. I will come back to the test for customary title, but I take this opportunity to say to National members who will be voting for this bill that rights are conferred on customary title holders that are over and above the rights that other freehold property owners get in New Zealand, whether they be Māori or non-Māori.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Shocking!

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Well, the ACT Party thinks that is shocking, because we believe strongly in having one law for all.

I will give one example of that: a planning right. If iwi or hapū gain customary title to an area of the common marine and coastal area—and Mr Finlayson has acknowledged that could be up to 10 percent of our coast, but, who knows, as it could be a lot more than 10 percent; it could be a huge amount more and we will know only in time—they have a planning right and they can decide what happens on that piece of land or marine and coastal area. That benefit is not available to any other New Zealander. I will repeat that: it is not available to any other New Zealander. No New Zealanders who own a piece of freehold land can decide what will happen on that land. No New Zealanders can go along to the local council and say what they want to have happen on that land and have the council do as the landowner says. That is one of the benefits conferred on customary title holders.

If we look to the genesis of the situation here today, we know that the judges in the Ngāti Apa decision in 2003 said that iwi and hapū should have the right to go to court to state their claim. That is a right that the ACT Party has stood for consistently throughout the entire time since. However, what was the Labour Government’s response to that decision? The Labour Government’s response was to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It announced within a matter of hours of that Court of Appeal decision that it would substantially reduce the rights of iwi and hapū to go to court. Yes, iwi and hapū have the ability to go to court. There are rights there, but they were substantially lessened, and the benefits that they would derive from going to court were substantially reduced. The ACT Party opposed that.

What has the National Government’s response been? It has been not just to repeal that Act to undo that injustice but also to impose another injustice. Why do I say that? I say that because this bill sets down a number of tests. It codifies the tests, as the Attorney-General tells us, and it does not leave the matter to the courts. There may well be some iwi and hapū who feel that they have had those rights taken away from them. The Hon Bill English talked this afternoon about ongoing resentment. Well, the only way to avoid ongoing resentment and a sense of injustice is to allow iwi and hapū to go to court—to do what they asked to do—and let the judges rule on that matter. As Tariana Turia said earlier this afternoon, there was far more at stake than simply repealing the 2004 Act.

The National Government has responded exactly as the previous Labour Government did. It looked to put legislation in place, and there may well be iwi and hapū who are denied the right to go to court because of the tests laid down in this document. Equally, there is the real chance that customary title may be transferred over land and provide benefits to a small group of New Zealanders at the expense of all other New Zealanders. I do not necessarily mean there will be a difference between Māori and non-Māori; I mean that certain selected iwi may benefit at the expense of other iwi and other non-Māori.

It always fascinates me to listen to Metiria Turei talk about the 12,500 private titles. I have always found it fascinating that of those 12,500 titles that Metiria Turei rails against, 3,000 are actually in the name of Māori. What are the benefits that go with the granting of customary titles? We have potentially billions and billions of dollars of mineral wealth. We know that off the Waikato and Taranaki coasts there are literally billions and billions of dollars worth of ironsands. Why are we concerned? It is because the National Government has been happy to tell its own MPs and the public that the test for customary title is a very, very high test. The Government has said to the public of New Zealand that to be able to prove customary title, they need to show continuous and exclusive use and occupation of an area since 1840. The Government has said to New Zealanders that that is a very high test. Well, it is a high test, but it is not actually the test. In 1840 the limits of our territorial waters were simply 3 miles. This bill enshrines in legislation the fact that it is assumed that iwi and hapū have customary titles over the foreshore and seabed, out to 12 miles, not 3 miles, but 12 miles. That change to our territorial limits was legislated for only in 1977.

When David Parker spoke in the Committee stage, he said that a vote for National was a vote for the Māori Party, and a vote for the Māori Party was a vote for National. I daresay that that was simply a pitch to the Māori voters who have previously supported the Māori Party to throw their political allegiance behind Labour. ACT has not sought to try to gain political support on this issue; we have sought to educate New Zealanders and to explain to them the provisions of the bill. I ask the members of the Māori Party whether they honestly believe that New Zealanders have been told the truth by the National Government. If they honestly put their hand on their hearts, I do not think they can answer yes to that question. The reason I say that is a lot has been said about access to the common marine and coastal area. Boaties will get a surprise when they look at clause 28, because they will find that when they sail into a bay that has been granted customary title they will be able to anchor there only temporarily. What is “temporarily”? Can they anchor their boat for 5 hours, or for 5 days? Who knows? Yet the Attorney-General will stand up and say that this provision provides certainty.

There has been a racist element to this debate. We have received emails from members of the public, and I have gone on record, and the media have acknowledged this, as saying that ACT’s position is different from the Coastal Coalition, and it has always been different. ACT believes that iwi and hapū should have the right to go to court. I have stressed that point at every public meeting that I have held over the last 6 months—at every single public meeting. ACT will be voting against this bill. We think it is a tragedy for iwi and for hapū, and we think it is a tragedy for all New Zealanders. The feelings of resentment that the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about this afternoon will not be resolved by this. Thank you.

Part 4 Administrative and miscellaneous matters

How interesting that we have just heard Mr Parekura Horomia talking about the virtues of one law for all, and Tau Henare asking what is wrong with that. One would believe, with that interjection, that Tau Henare actually believes we should have one law for all, which highlights that Tau Henare does not understand the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. He does not understand the detailed provisions in this bill. One of the clauses we are debating is clause 93 in Part 4, and that clause restricts iwi and hapū—Hon Tau Henare: Where’s Hilary?

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: —I say to Mr Henare—to bringing claims within 6 years. Why should iwi and hapū have the ability to bring claims restricted? That is just one example of why we do not have one law for all, and it is just one example of a provision that is bad for iwi and hapū. I can point to a number of provisions that give iwi and hapū benefits that other New Zealanders do not have, but, equally, clause 93 takes away from the rights of iwi and hapū.

In this debate—and I am hoping to make a number of contributions on Part 4—I want to focus specifically on clauses 93 and 105. My colleague Hilary Calvert has a number of amendments, and a number of them are very substantial and make substantial improvements to this bill. But before detailing those amendments, and before coming back to clauses 93 and 105, I need to briefly comment on the interaction and the comments from Hone Harawira.

Hone Harawira has used this debate as a continued opportunity to take shots at the Māori Party, and I need to repeat that this bill is a victory for the Māori Party. I think we can see that in the fact that 200 people are marching towards Wellington in a hīkoi, whereas 7 years ago there were 40,000. There may be a perception that Māori do not support the Māori Party on this bill, but I have no doubt that over the next 7 months, as the Māori Party gets out into the community and explains the massive benefits—notwithstanding that 6-year restriction I have just referred to—it will build on this support, and the Māori Party will be returned to Parliament.

One has to look no further than the article published in the New Zealand Herald last Wednesday where Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples made a point of all the benefits they had achieved, and they concluded: “Make no mistake—the Maori Party persuaded the National Party to support this bill. We will work with any party that supports the kaupapa of our people. … For a small party, we have achieved amazing results in a short time.”

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. One thing that is important is to ensure that our language is pronounced well. The member said “kaukapakapa”. It is actually “ko-papa”; “ko” as in “toe”; “pa” as in “pa”—kaupapa, not kaukapakapa.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member. I am sure we can all improve our pronunciation of the Māori language, myself included. But I say to the member, with the deepest respect, that in the strict rulings of this Chamber, the kawa of this Chamber, that is not a point of order. But it was helpful.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: What the ACT Party, and I have no doubt the Labour Party, have tried to have is a debate based on ideas and arguments. It has been very, very sad to see this debate cast as a racist debate in the media. I found it particularly sad when just half an hour ago, Tariana Turia, alongside me and Rahui Katene, made the comment, when responding to David Parker’s submissions: “No, because you’re a bunch of racists.” I heard those words myself just a few feet from my seat, and I found it very sad that those comments were made by someone who has achieved so much for Māori.

I will turn now to clause 105, which states that to bring a claim for customary title it is not actually necessary for iwi and hapū to prove that claim. In actual fact, it reverses the burden of proof. It says that those customary interests are deemed to exist unless proven otherwise. In other words, Māori, iwi, and hāpu have a customary interest in the foreshore and seabed, now renamed the common marine and coastal area, unless proved otherwise. We heard from the Attorney-General, who said that there was nothing wrong with that and that was no big deal because that is the situation in Canadian and Australian common law, and we are doing nothing more than what has already happened. The Attorney-General either is trying to mislead New Zealanders or he does not understand his own bill; I suspect that he understands his own bill.

Clause 105 is very important. In 1840 Māori customary interests, iwi and hāpu customary interests, went out to the 3-mile limit. They went out to the limit of the territorial seas. This bill enshrines in legislation a customary interest that goes beyond that 3-mile limit out to 12 miles. It creates a customary interest whereby it is then on the Crown to prove that the customary interest does not exist. If one doubts the importance of the massive win that that clause gives and the massive transfer of wealth it will create from all New Zealanders to just some New Zealanders, one needs only to look at the speech Tariana Turia gave in this House in her second reading speech.

If we look at Tariana’s comments in Hansard, we see thatshe says: “There is also a very interesting provision, tucked away in clause 105, the burden of proof clause, which states explicitly that ‘it is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that customary interest has not been extinguished. … In other words it will be up to the Crown to prove that any interest had been extinguished—rather than placing the onus of proof on the whānau, hāpu and iwi.” So this bill creates a customary interest: the ability of iwi or hāpu to claim a customary title over land to the 12-mile limit, the territorial seas, which is a limit that was only just extended less than 40 years ago.

I come to clause 93. The ACT Party campaigned very strongly for the tightening up of this provision. We have said to New Zealanders that this provision, as it came to Parliament, originally provided for an Order in Council to give effect to an agreement on customary title. It did not have to come back before Parliament and be scrutinised by public scrutiny. Now the Government has moved on that; it has made this change. One might be inclined to ask why. One might be inclined to ask about the quality of the scrutiny that Parliament would give, because we saw that the Māori Affairs Committee scrutiny of this bill was very poor. The 520-page officials’ report and its recommendations were dismissed in an hour and a half. But nevertheless we have that scrutiny. So that is at least something to be grateful for. That is important, because the provisions of this bill are very, very wide ranging.

The Attorney-General has focused on the issue of free access. I wonder how many boaties are aware of the provisions of clause 28, which will be incorporated into those agreements to be scrutinised by Parliament. For example, boaties are allowed “to temporarily anchor, moor, and ground” a boat and are allowed to remain in a place “for a convenient time”. What is a convenient time for boaties? What does temporarily anchoring their boat mean? Does that mean they can anchor their boat for 1 hour, 3 hours, or a day? At what stage do they overextend their welcome and a customary title can charge them for mooring their boat? We do not know; the courts do not know. The courts will have to find out, and the Attorney-General has the audacity to come into this Chamber and create uncertainty. This bill does not create certainty.

I move now to some of the amendments that the ACT Party is putting forward, and there are several—

Hon Tau Henare: Several hundred!

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: There have been several hundred in total, I say to Mr Henare, and what a disgrace that we were in this Chamber last night after midnight voting on this bill and voting on the Attorney-General’s amendments. It is interesting that we are voting on the Attorney-General’s amendments, because if he had followed proper parliamentary process, we would have had those amendments in the select committee—the very select committee Mr Henare chairs, and like an animal all he can do is sit there and bark at me. He sits there and barks. If he had chaired the select committee properly and shown some leadership, we would not have been sitting in the Chamber after midnight to vote on the Attorney-General’s amendments. They would have been properly included in the report-back of the select committee.

I will move to the first of the major amendments that Hilary Calvert is moving. It is an amendment to clause 118(1)

Part 3 Customary interests

I will just comment on what Maryan Street had to say. She summarised part of the basis of the ACT Party’s objection to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. We believe that iwi and hapū should have access to courts. We do not believe that the law should be codified in the way that it has been, which denies the right of iwi and hapū to go to court and to fight for their common law rights.This is a debate on Part 3 of the bill. I will focus in particular on the clauses relating to customary title, which have been identified by the Hon Christopher Finlayson: clauses 60, 61, and 64. I will refer also to mana tuku iho.

Before I do that I feel as though I need to respond to some of the comments that Hone Harawira made earlier this afternoon. I had hoped to make this contribution during the debate on the last part, before the vote was taken, but I was prevented from doing that. But the points I will make are still just as relevant. The ACT Party totally agrees with Hone Harawira that this bill needs to be opposed, and opposed at every step. We will be fighting to the bitter end.

One of the points we make is in respect of what Hone said this afternoon: that this was a confiscation of Māori rights. I think Hone and some of his supporters are of the view that iwi and hapū have customary title to, have ownership of, the entire seabed and foreshore out to the end of the territorial sea, to the extent of the 12-mile limit. It is important to come back to the decision in the Ngāti Apa case. Once again, the Attorney-General quoted that case this afternoon. The view that Māori own the seabed and foreshore is a common view amongst some Māori. It is interesting that a hīkoi is marching to Wellington as we speak. But I suggest that the reason the hīkoi has been formed and is marching on this occasion is a lot different from what it was in 2004. In 2004 the hīkoi was marching for access to the courts; it was acting for access to the courts and for justice. My colleague the Hon Rodney Hide joined that hīkoi when it arrived in Wellington.

I will comment on some of the observations made by Dame Sian Elias, the Chief Justice. She said in the Ngāti Apa case: “This appeal deals only with the initial question of whether the Maori Land Court can enter into the substantive inquiry.” The appeal dealt only with whether the issue could legally go before the Māori Land Court. It did not deal with whether iwi and hapū have customary title. She went on to say: “The significance of the determinations this Court is asked to make should not be exaggerated. The outcome of the appeal cannot establish that there is Maori customary land below the high water mark.” There you have it. She said that the outcome of the Ngāti Apa case cannot be exaggerated. It did not establish that there was Māori customary land below the high-water mark.

Ever since that judgment, despite her observations that it did not determine whether there was Māori customary land below the high-water mark, a group of New Zealanders has believed that is the case—that Māori own the seabed and foreshore. In this case we have seen the National Government take fright, as the Labour Government took fright in 2004 with the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Both National and Labour have sought to restrict the rights of iwi and hapū to go to court to claim their customary title, I guess under a belief that they would win large amounts of New Zealand.

In this case they have set a codification—a series of tests—that the Attorney-General says will lead to certainty and to equity. I will explain in my call why that will do exactly the opposite, why it will not lead to certainty, and why it will not lead to equity. Interestingly, Dame Sian Elias goes on to say: “Nor will the appeal resolve questions of the nature of any property interest in land (whether it approximates a fee simple interest or whether it is lesser property).”

I will focus most of my remaining time on the issue of customary title, but before doing so I will comment very briefly on the concept of mana tuku iho. Essentially, mana tuku iho creates a universal right of consultation. Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia wrote in the New Zealand Herald last week: “The new bill acknowledges that ALL coastal iwi have connections to the coast. Their mana tuku iho (inherent authority) entitles them to protect their wāhi tapu and to be consulted on conservation and resource-management issues.” One of the reasons this bill is a racist bill is that that right is given only to coastal iwi. What about other people living on the coast who are not iwi? What about non-Māori New Zealanders who also live on the coast, whose families have lived on the coast for over 100 years? They do not have the same rights as provided for in this bill. If that is not a racist provision, I do not know what is.

The issue comes to the tests of marine title and the rights that derive from it. National has perpetuated the myth, the fiction, that only very small areas of New Zealand will be opened up to claims of customary title. Its members have said in their publications, for example, that “The test”—for customary title—“requires continuous, exclusive use and occupation of an area since 1840. As you can imagine, that is not an easy test to meet.” Well, it is not an easy test to meet, but that is not actually the test. One does not actually have to prove continuous and exclusive occupation; one has to prove exclusive and continuous occupation without substantial interruption. What is the effect of that proviso? We do not know, Christopher Finlayson does not know, and the Court of Appeal does not know. To suggest that this bill will lead to certainty is a load of hogwash.

If when I look at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 207, I see the addition of new clause 61(2A), which states: “The use at any time, by persons who are not members of an applicant group, of a specified area of the common marine and coastal area for fishing or navigation does not, of itself, preclude the applicant group from establishing the existence of customary marine title.” So iwi can make a claim for customary title, iwi can say they have occupied the land exclusively, but the fact that other people come and fish, boat, and navigate through that land does not preclude iwi from making a claim, it does not preclude the court from awarding iwi customary title, and it does not preclude the Government from entering into an agreement to grant customary title.

To perpetuate the fiction, the myth, and to mislead New Zealanders that the right to apply for customary title will apply to only a very small part of New Zealand is, I think, deceptive in the extreme. I think National is relying on the fact that New Zealanders are not taking an interest in this issue, but I think in time that they will, and they will take an interest in ever-bigger numbers.

I turn to clause 64, and to the benefits that flow from being granted customary marine title. The first thing we know is that with a grant of customary marine title comes the ownership of minerals, other than those deemed to be owned by the Crown under the Crown Minerals Act: basically, all minerals and resources other than oil, gold, silver, and natural resources. That right is granted specifically in this bill out to the 12-mile limit—out to the limits of the territorial sea. Well, in 1840 the limit of the territorial sea was recognised as being 3 miles, so in this bill we are setting ourselves up to transfer ownership of resources from all New Zealanders to a small, select group of iwi who can meet these tests. The Government suggests that that is equity, but how does that protect the rights of all New Zealanders?

Let me go on. There is also the right to protect wāhi tapu. I would be the first to recognise Māori custom; I would be the first to recognise sacred areas. But New Zealanders probably do not appreciate that when a claim is lodged for customary title, areas can be designated as wāhi tapu. They are designated as sacred, and that gives iwi the right, if customary title is subsequently granted, to say that is a sacred area and they do not want other New Zealanders to enter.

Preamble

The ACT Party strongly opposes this legislation in the same way that the ACT Party opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. In fact, the ACT Party is the only party that has had a consistent policy, a policy based entirely on principle, in its opposition to the provisions of this bill. The ACT Party over the next 2 or 3 days, with your support, Mr Chairperson, will take the opportunity to put its arguments out into the public domain and to repeat those arguments, because they are powerful arguments. They are arguments that have been ignored by the Government and they need to be understood by all New Zealanders.

Let me comment very briefly on the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, who commented on the preamble. He said that the Prime Minister promised that this bill would not proceed unless it had widespread support. We in this Chamber know today that this bill does not have widespread support. The suggestion that it has widespread support is an absolute fiction. The preamble sets out the history of this bill and of how we got to this stage. As the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, points out, it started with the decision in the Ngāti Apa case in 2003. The name Ngāti Apa is bandied around the Chamber. Most of the members of this House would know some of the background, but probably few members of the New Zealand public would know it. In the Ngāti Apa decision we had nine iwi from the upper South Island—

Rahui Katene: Eight.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: I am told it was eight. I am happy to be corrected on points of fact, but it was more than just one iwi. It was more than just Ngāti Apa iwi; there were eight iwi. The eight brought a case asking for recognition of what they said their customary rights were to parts of the seabed of the Marlborough Sounds. Ngāti Apa was just one of those iwi—just one of those eight iwi. If you like, they have lent their name to this case, which is now etched in the memories and the history of the debate on this bill.

They brought a case that went all the way to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal accepted their claim to the extent that they were seeking to have their case heard in the Māori Land Court, which had previously been denied to them. The right to bring their claim had been denied to them in the High Court. The High Court acted on a decision of the Court of Appeal in 1963—the Ninety Mile Beach decision. It was expected that the Court of Appeal, when it heard this case in 2002, would follow the decision in 1963, but it did not, to the surprise of all, including, I suspect, the Prime Minister and the deputy leader of the Government of the time. The Court of Appeal decided that Ngāti Apa and the other seven iwi were entitled to go to court.

It is very important to understand what the court decided and what it did not decide. That is the crux of this issue. The court did not decide that Ngāti Apa and the other seven iwi had customary title to the seabed and foreshore—it did not say that. There was a widespread misrepresentation or misunderstanding of that decision. The decision did not say that. What the Court of Appeal said was that Ngāti Apa had the right to go to court—the right to go to court. That is a right that the ACT Party has consistently spoken up for and defended ever since the decision was brought down by Justice Sian Elias and her four colleagues in 2003—the right to go to court.

When the previous Labour Government announced within 36 hours of that decision that it would pass legislation to take away that right, or, certainly, to severely restrict it, the ACT Party opposed it. We know the background. We know that Tariana Turia gave up her ministerial position in the Labour Government, stood in a by-election, and formed the Māori Party. It is important to understand that that decision said that iwi have the right to go to court and nothing more. In fact, if it did say anything more, what the judges said was that it was a very, very high test—a very, very high test to award customary title.

I carry on to the next recital of the preamble, recital (2). It talks about the bitterness and the difficulty that the passing of that legislation in 2003 created. As a consequence, when National was elected into Government it formed a confidence and supply agreement with the Māori Party. The National Government agreed with the Māori Party to review the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As the Attorney-General says, and as is laid out in recital (3) of the preamble, the ministerial review panel recommended that the Act should be scrapped and replaced. Following that we had this document here, which was produced by the office of the Hon Christopher Finlayson. It is called “Reviewing the Foreshore and Seabed Act”. It is a very concise document. I recommend to anyone who has followed this issue to read what this document says. I am sure it can be downloaded from the internet—I presume it can be.

The interesting thing about this document is that the Attorney-General announced his decision to call this review, to publish this review, the week before Easter 2009, and he announced that he was closing submissions on 30 April. That allowed only 4 weeks for the people of New Zealand to digest this document, to understand the history, and to make their submissions. What we now know is that 1,500 organisations made a submission on it. I say that we now know that, but we did not know that in May, we did not know that in June of last year, we did not know it even in July or in August, because when the Attorney-General was asked to release the submissions that were made on the document he refused to do so, he continually refused to do so, and it was not until an Official Information Act request was lodged that he reluctantly released those submissions late last year. What do we know? We know that 90 percent of the people who made submissions on this document oppose what the Government proposes. The Government set out four options. It was very clear from reading this document that option four, the Government’s proposed option, was opposed by 90 percent of submitters.

We come now to recital (3) of preamble, which refers to the bill. The process of the bill passing through this Parliament has been an absolute disgrace—an absolute disgrace. I sat as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, which travelled around New Zealand hearing submissions on this bill. I was supported by my colleague Hilary Calvert. The select committee heard submissions on this bill in Whangarei, in Auckland, in Tauranga, in Wellington, in Blenheim, and in Christchurch.

Hon Tau Henare: Hilary Calvert was there most of the time, not John Boscawen.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: I am very happy to respond to the taunts of Mr Tau Henare. He was the chair of that committee, and, clearly, he has a very bad memory. I attended the sittings in Whangarei, in Auckland, in Wellington, and in Blenheim. Hilary Calvert also attended hearings in Tauranga, in Christchurch, and in Auckland. The ACT Party was represented. We listened to the people. I say on behalf of my colleague Hilary Calvert, who will speak on the preamble later in this debate if the Chair gives her the call, that we were absolutely shocked at the way that some of the submitters were treated by the select committee. They were treated discourteously. People of New Zealand come along, they get involved in the parliamentary process, they make submissions, but they do not come along expecting to be abused, to be spoken down to, and to be called liars.

What came out of that select committee? There were 4,500, or was it 5,000, submissions. What we do know is that an overwhelming number of submissions on the bill strongly opposed it. Now we come to the farce—the absolute farce—with which the members of the select committee considered those 4,500 submissions. They met together on the first afternoon that Parliament sat this year and considered a 520-page report—520 pages—in less than 2 hours. They wrote a report the following day, the report of the majority, which was one page—one page. They summarised this issue in one page. Attached to that page were 40 pages of recommended changes

ACT’s stance on the foreshore and seabed has always been consistent. In 2004 ACT argued that claims to customary title over the area of the foreshore and seabed should be left to the courts to decide. Today I reiterate that stance. ACT believes that the courts should decide this issue. I reiterate the stance of the ACT Party by saying that we support the repeal of the 2004 Act, and oppose the passage of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Although National and Labour members claim that the bill restores the right of iwi to have their day in court when claiming customary title over an area of foreshore and seabed, the fact is that it does not.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Codification or no codification?

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: At this stage I acknowledge Mr Finlayson, who has just referred to codification. I will come back to codification very shortly. I acknowledge Mr Finlayson’s acknowledgment of the speech and contribution by David Parker, because it seems that Mr Finlayson, alone in this House, is prepared to acknowledge the contribution of an opposite number.

When the Prime Minister delivered his statement on the first sitting day of Parliament this year, we heard responses from the party leaders. Tariana Turia got up and said that she almost felt ashamed to be a Minister in the Government and to be supporting the Government, given the level of unemployment among young Māori. Earlier this afternoon, when I listened to David Parker, whom Mr Finlayson generously acknowledged, I felt the same shame that Tariana Turia referred to on the first sitting day of this year. I felt the shame of listening to the interjections and contributions of Tau Henare, Paul Quinn, and, more recently, Simon Bridges. Although the leader of the Green Party does not want to record and acknowledge those contributions so that they are written into the record of Hansard , I am prepared to record them.

This is an issue about two things. It is an issue about tests over customary title, and about the benefits that come from those tests. In essence, we have two views. One view states that the tests for granting customary title and all that comes from it are far too loose, and that far greater areas of customary marine title will be awarded as a consequence of the loose tests laid down in this bill. The contrary position is the one espoused by people like a number of Māori Party supporters who came and opposed this bill and a number of iwi who said that the tests are far too tough. In fact, Ngāi Tahu came to the select committee hearing in Christchurch and presented a map of the South Island with the 200-mile economic zone marked on it and said, essentially, that everything within that 200-mile zone was theirs.

Tariana Turia referred earlier this afternoon to the contribution of the Coastal Coalition. I acknowledge the work that the Coastal Coalition has done, and in particular the work of Hugh Barr and Muriel Newman. The position of the Coastal Coalition is not the ACT position. Unlike the Coastal Coalition, the ACT Party firmly believes that iwi should have their right to go to court. They should be able to bring a claim for customary title.

I felt ashamed when I saw some of the material put out by National on this bill.

Hon Tau Henare: Give up your warrant; go on. Give up your warrant.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: I am looking at an extract from the Beehive website, which is headed “Setting the Record Straight”, and states: “You may have heard opponents of the Marine and Coastal Area Bill making inaccurate”—

Hon Tau Henare: No you wouldn’t, would you, because you like the cars.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Let me interrupt my speech and acknowledge Tau Henare. I say to Mr Henare that I felt ashamed at the way he treated the New Zealanders who appeared before that select committee.

Hon Tau Henare Is that right?

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Yes, it is. I felt ashamed, and I feel ashamed, that I am supporting a Government that plays the ACT members off against the Māori Party members. I felt ashamed to see the way some New Zealanders who appeared before that select committee were treated. Yes, there may have been members who had eccentric views, and there may have been members who had racist views, but the role of a select committee is to listen to what the public of New Zealand have to say and to treat them with respect. People who make a submission on law do it out of the goodness of their heart and what they believe within them.

Let us look at the Government’s website and an extract headed “Setting the Record Straight”. It states: “You may have heard opponents of the Marine and Coastal Area Bill making inaccurate claims about the legislation. We want to set the record straight:”. The Beehive website goes on to summarise a few of the key issues. As Mr Finlayson said, it is about codification; it is about the tests. The website states that the opponents claim that “The bar has been lowered on the qualifying criteria so anyone can apply.” It further states: “The criteria to apply for customary title is extensive. The most rigorous test is proving uninterrupted and exclusive use and occupation of an area of the common marine and coastal area, from 1840 to the present day. Many areas of New Zealand are not eligible because of this requirement.” That is interesting, because that is a very tough test. I note that the Prime Minister, in reply to comments by Jim Matson, who is a long-time National Party supporter, in the Sunday Star-Times  2 weeks ago, made the same comment. Although the article appears under the name of John Key, I suspect it was written for him by the office of Mr Finlayson. It states: “The test for customary title requires continuous exclusive use and occupation of an area since 1840, and as you can imagine, this is not an easy test to meet.”

Well, no, it is not an easy test to meet, but it is not actually the test. The test is not requiring continuous exclusive use and occupation of an area since 1840. No sooner had the Attorney-General finished his first reading speech back in September, he said that he intended to lodge a Supplementary Order Paper to change the bill that he was presenting. He said: “We’re not going to have a test that requires you to show exclusive use. We’re going to allow people who have used it, we’re going to allow people who have boated through the area, we’re going to allow people to fish through an area, and the mere fact that they have done that does not preclude an iwi or hapū coming along, making a claim, and saying that they have had continuous and exclusive use.”

The Government has tried to reassure New Zealanders, it has tried to put New Zealanders at ease, and it has tried to say that there is not an issue—the Government is popular; back the Government. The ramifications of this will come back to make New Zealanders rue it for many, many years to come.

Another key issue here is that the Prime Minister says that, put simply, the bill is a new approach to the ownership of the common marine and coastal area. It guarantees free public access to New Zealanders. It also protects fishing rights. If someone is using the marine and coastal area for something at the moment, then the bill guarantees that person will be able to continue to do so. It guarantees it. We are told we are allowed to access an area, but we have no guarantee of use and occupation.

We are told there will be some 385 changes to the bill. Has the Government had the courtesy of discussing with the people of New Zealand what those changes are? No, it has not. We have heard this afternoon that a Supplementary Order Paper will be lodged in the House tomorrow, and we will be debating it on Thursday.

The ACT Party is bitterly opposed to this bill. It will deny rights to some who have them, and give rights to others who do not have them. It will take from some, and give to others. The ACT Party strongly opposes this bill, and we will fight it to the bitter end. I hope that the other speakers in this House are given greater courtesy than Mr Parker had shown to him this afternoon. Thank you

Mr Speaker,

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to respond to the Prime Minister’s speech, and I take this opportunity to acknowledge and congratulate the Government on much of what it has done during its first term.

I say “much”, but not all.

Among the achievements have been the reform of the Resource Management Act, which the ACT Party has participated in; the rationalisation and streamlining of various Government departments; and I should also say the passing of ACT’s ‘Three Strikes’ law, which has already started to make New Zealand citizens feel safer in their homes and on their streets.

I say that it is ACT’s ‘Three Strikes’ law because no one can deny that that law would not be on our statute books but for its promotion by the ACT Party.  The Prime Minister freely acknowledges that the ‘Three Strikes’ law would not have been passed without the ACT Party nudging and cajoling the National Government every step of the way.

The ACT Party and National have also implemented, and then expanded, the 90-day trial period for employment contracts.  This has helped to align our employment practices with those of the rest of the developed world.  But, more important, it has given employers the opportunity to take on new employees with the confidence to know that, if they are making a mistake, they are able to find an alternative.  It is important to give confidence to employers so that new employees can be taken into the workforce.

The ACT Party was instrumental in getting that policy extended to cover – not just employers of fewer than 20 employees but – all employers in New Zealand, to give them the opportunity to improve their productivity and employment of New Zealanders.

Although unemployment at 6.5 percent is higher than Australia’s, we can take some comfort from the fact that it is not around the levels of the US and the UK of around nine and 10 percent.  We are told informally that if we included those people who are looking to work full-time in the US, the level would be closer to 15 percent.

The fact that our unemployment rate is higher than Australia’s should be a concern to us.  Already we have seen in the past week the ‘New Zealand Herald’ reporting that net outwards immigration to Australia is already back on the increase.  We need to be focusing continually on our relationship with Australia because, unless we do – unless we move to reduce the income gap between New Zealanders and Australians – we will see ever greater numbers of New Zealanders move overseas, and move overseas permanently.

It is a fact that, for generations, young New Zealanders have travelled overseas to gain experience – to gain job experience – and to seek out new endeavours and new experiences.  Traditionally they have always returned to New Zealand but, increasingly, they are not.  That should be a concern to all New Zealanders as more and more of our children and grandchildren grow up in countries other than New Zealand.

It was this concern for the declining living standards of New Zealand versus Australia that caused the ACT Party to campaign on reducing that gap, making it a fundamental plank of our 2008 election campaign.

In fact, we put out a 20-Point Plan to reduce that gap and – as part of our Confidence & Supply Agreement with National – got National to commit to the concrete goal of reducing that gap, eliminating that gap, and bringing our living standards alongside those of Australia by 2025.

The ACT Party was, once again, instrumental in nudging National and convincing it to appoint the 2025 Taskforce chaired by Don Brash.  It is a big challenge.  As the Taskforce pointed out in its most recent report last November: if we continue on as we do now, we face the risk that a further net 400,000 New Zealanders will leave our shores for Australia by 2025.

It is interesting then that we have in this morning’s ‘New Zealand Herald’ an editorial titled ‘National needs new policy for closing the gap’.  The ‘New Zealand Herald’ reminds us that, from the convenience of Opposition, National was able to make promises and criticise the then Labour Government’s position on the economy.  It points out that the challenge to raise our living standards is still there.  It says that the Government knew, and certainly knows now, that the comparative success against Australia would require bold and disruptive interventions.  The ‘New Zealand Herald’ says that National is making that commitment in standing up.

Making that commitment to a concrete goal of lifting our living standards to Australia’s requires bold policies and courage.  ACT has always led the way in promoting policies to align and to raise New Zealand’s living standards with those of our closest neighbour.  The editorial concludes by stating: “For its own sake, New Zealand needs bold economic initiatives that will position the country for sustained growth.”

Let me repeat that to the members in the House from the National Government tonight: “For its own sake, New Zealand needs bold economic initiatives that will position the country for sustained growth.”
It is the role of the ACT Party to advocate for those bold initiatives and to promote those policies.  When I first rose this evening I congratulated the National Government on much of what it has done.  Tragically, there are some things the National Government has done that have not been helpful for the economy; that have not moved the country in the direction of reducing that gap.

I think of youth rates – of the National MPs voting against Sir Roger Douglas’ Private Member’s Bill to reinstitute youth rates.  I will remind Members for a brief minute of that debate.  We saw the previous Labour Government legislate to abolish youth rates, legislate to require employers to pay 16 and 17-year-old young people the minimum wage.  What is the natural reaction of an employer when faced with employing someone who is 30, who has life experience, who has jobs, who has skills experience or employing a 16 or 17-year-old?  It is a lay down misere.  It is obvious.  Anyone who has spoken to employers knows that an employer will go for the most experienced person.

Young people are being denied the chance to get on to the bottom rung of the ladder.  This Parliament has denied young people the chance to go out and get a job at $10 or $11 an hour, or whatever their economic value is to their employer.  The Government has said that it will throw them on the scrap heap and give them the Unemployment Benefit of $4.50 an hour.  How does that help raise New Zealand’s productive capacity?  How does it raise our prosperity?  We have seen that with the significant increase in youth unemployment since the Labour Government first passed that legislation abolishing youth rates.

We have also seen a very significant cost to the economy in the Emissions Trading Scheme.  This scheme was introduced by the previous Labour Government, came into effect on January 1 2008, and operates as a massive subsidy to foresters.

What the previous Labour Government essentially put in place was a massive grant that gives tree planters a one-off gain of about 230 tonnes of carbon – around $5,000 a hectare. 

The previous Labour Government put into place a grant system that requires New Zealanders to pay some $500 million a year more in electricity and petrol to subsidise those massive subsidies.

Nothing annoys me more – nothing makes me laugh more – than to hear Labour Leader Phil Goff stand up and talk about the price of electricity and petrol going up.  Mr Goff knows full well that the Emissions Trading Scheme under the previous Labour Government would have resulted, not in a five percent increase but, a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity.

While we can be thankful that the scheme was modified by National, the fact is that it should not be there in the first place.  It should not be operating as a $500-million-a-year subsidy to foresters.  The previous Labour Government put into place a system to pay massive subsidies to foresters, which required the National Government to carry it on.  Anyone in the industry who was smart knew that.

All New Zealanders are paying for that with their electricity and their petrol.  If anything is contributing to that gap between New Zealand and Australia, it is the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Thank you.

The ACT Party and National have also implemented, and then expanded, the 90-day trial period for employment contracts. This has helped to align our employment practices with those of the rest of the developed world. But, more important, it has given employers the opportunity to take on new employees in the confidence of knowing that if they make a mistake, they are able to find an alternative employee. It is important to give confidence to employers so that new employees can be taken into the workforce. The ACT Party, once again, was instrumental in getting that policy extended to cover not just employers of fewer than 20 employees but all employers in New Zealand, to give all employers the opportunity to improve their productivity and employment of New Zealanders.

Although unemployment, at 6.5 percent, is higher than Australia’s rate, we can take some comfort from the fact that it is not around the levels of the United States and the United Kingdom, which have rates of around 9 and 10 percent. We are told informally that if we included those people who are looking to work full-time in the United States, the level would be closer to 15 percent. But the fact that our unemployment rate is higher than Australia’s should be a concern to us. Already we have seen in the last week the New Zealand Herald  report that net outwards immigration to Australia is back on the increase. We need to focus continually on our relationship with Australia, because unless we do and unless we move to reduce the income gap between New Zealanders and Australians, we will see ever-greater numbers of New Zealanders move overseas, and move overseas permanently. It is a fact that for generations young New Zealanders have travelled overseas to gain experience: to gain job experience, and to seek out new endeavours and new experiences. Traditionally they have always returned to New Zealand, but increasingly they are not doing so. That should be a concern to all New Zealanders, as more and more of our children and grandchildren grow up in countries other than New Zealand.

It was this concern about the declining living standards of New Zealand versus those of Australia that caused the ACT Party to campaign on reducing that gap. We made it a fundamental plank of our 2008 election campaign. In fact, we put out a 20-point plan to reduce that gap. As part of our confidence and supply agreement with National, we got National to commit to the concrete goal of reducing that gap, eliminating that gap, and bringing our living standards alongside those of Australia by 2025. The ACT Party, once again, was instrumental in nudging National, and in convincing National to appoint the 2025 Taskforce, chaired by Don Brash. It is a big challenge. As the task force pointed out in its most recent report last November, if we continue on as we are doing now, we face the risk that a further net 400,000 New Zealanders will leave our shores for Australia by 2025.

It is interesting, then, that we have in this morning’s New Zealand Herald  an editorial entitled “National needs new policy for closing the gap.” The New Zealand Herald reminds us that from the convenience of Opposition, National was able to make promises, and was able to criticise the previous Labour Government’s position on the economy. But the New Zealand Herald points out that the challenge of raising our living standards is still there. It says the Government knew, and certainly knows now, that comparative success relative to Australia would require bold and disruptive interventions. The New Zealand Herald says National is standing up and making that commitment. Making a commitment to a concrete goal of lifting our living standards to the levels of Australia’s requires bold policies and courage. The ACT Party has always led the way in promoting policies to raise New Zealand’s living standards and align them with those of our closest neighbour. The editorial concludes by stating: “For its own sake, New Zealand needs bold economic initiatives that will position the country for sustained growth.” Let me repeat that to the members in the House from the National Government tonight: “For its own sake, New Zealand needs bold economic initiatives that will position the country for sustained growth.”

It is the role of the ACT Party to advocate for those bold initiatives and to promote those policies. When I first rose this evening, I congratulated the National Government on much of what it has done. Tragically, it has done some things that have not been helpful for the economy, and that have not moved the country in the direction of reducing that gap. I think of youth rates. I think of the National MPs voting against Sir Roger Douglas’ member’s bill to reinstitute youth rates. I will remind members for a brief minute of that debate. We saw the previous Labour Government legislate to abolish youth rates: legislate to require employers to pay 16 and 17-year-old young people the minimum wage. What is the natural reaction of an employer when faced with employing someone who is, say, 30, who has life experience, who has had jobs and has gained skills experience, or when faced with employing a 16 or 17-year-old? It is a lay down misère; it is obvious. Anyone who has spoken to employers knows that an employer will go for the most experienced person.

Young people are being denied the chance to get on to the bottom rung of the ladder. This Parliament has denied young people, young 16 and 17-year-olds, the opportunity to go out and get a job at $11 an hour, $10 an hour, $9 hour, or whatever their economic value is to an employer. We have said we will throw them on the scrap heap and give them the unemployment benefit of $4.50 an hour. How does that help to raise New Zealand’s productive capacity? How does it raise our prosperity? We have seen that there has been a significant increase in youth unemployment since the previous Labour Government first passed the legislation that abolished youth rates.

We have also seen a very significant cost to the economy from the emissions trading scheme. This scheme was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It came into effect on 1 January 2008, and it operates as a massive subsidy to foresters—a massive subsidy to foresters. Essentially, what the previous Labour Government put in place was a massive grant, a grant that essentially gives tree planters a one-off gain of about 230 tonnes of carbon. Mr Chauvel knows that is about $5,000 a hectare. The previous Labour Government put into place a grants system that requires New Zealanders to pay some $500 million a year more for their electricity and petrol in order to subsidise those massive subsidies. Nothing annoys me more, nothing makes me laugh more, than to hear Mr Goff stand up and talk about the price of electricity and the price of petrol going up. Mr Goff knows full well that the emissions trading scheme established under the previous Labour Government would have resulted in not a 5 percent increase in electricity but a 10 percent increase—a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity.

We can be thankful that the emissions trading scheme was modified by National, but it should not have been put there in the first place. It should not operate as a $500-million-a-year subsidy to foresters. Mr Chauvel thinks that is funny; he thinks it is funny. But I tell him that his Government put into place a system to pay massive subsidies to foresters, and the National Government carried it on. Anyone in the industry who is smart knows that. All New Zealanders are paying for that subsidy with their electricity and their petrol costs. If anything contributes to the gap between New Zealand and Australia, it is the emissions trading scheme. Thank you.

I will comment on the comments that have just been made by Metiria Turei. She said that people should not be able to give money in secret to political parties to get policy in exchange. All I can say to her is that she must have a very poor view of her fellow human beings. She must believe that the only—

Hon Ruth Dyson: For goodness’ sake!

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: No, I say that very sincerely. The implication is that the only reason a person would give money to a political party or to a cause is that that person wants something out of it. That is what Metiria Turei is saying. She is saying that people should not be able to give money to political parties to buy policy.

I have fundraised for a political party over the last 10 years, and I would say that the proportion of people who want something in exchange is very, very tiny. My experience with human nature is that people who give of their own money and time do it for the community interest and not because of what they can get out of it themselves.

I find it very interesting that in the last week the candidates in the Auckland mayoral election have disclosed how much money they raised and how much they spent. We now know that the two leading candidates, Mr Brown and Mr Banks, had trusts set up for them into which donors paid money, and then each of those trusts wrote cheques of approximately $500,000 to fund those campaigns. There was no transparency, which is fine, because the ACT Party supports the rights of privacy of those individuals who make donations.

I relate to the House the comment of David Lewis, the spokesperson on behalf of Len Brown. He said of the people who had paid into Len Brown’s trust that the campaign raised money from hundreds of people from across the political spectrum who supported the mayor’s vision. Most wanted anonymity, as per the current laws, simply because they are private persons with no interest in being in the media. There we are, I say to Metiria Turei. Those people supported the vision of the mayor. I suggest to Ms Turei that the people who support the Green Party—and I do not know the financial backers of the Green Party—are perhaps different from the people who back the ACT Party. The people who back the ACT Party support the vision of the ACT Party, and I would have thought that the people who fund, donate to, and work towards the Labour Party would support the Labour Party for its vision, and not for what they could get out of it.

I now come to the issue of third parties. It is interesting that Lianne Dalziel has once again brought to the House the issue of the Brethren campaign in 2005. It is also interesting that that campaign came to the public’s attention. The media ferreted it out. It was known. It may well have had an impact on the election—I suspect it did—but it came without any requirement for disclosure of donations. In actual fact, it works when the system is left to work, as evident from the fact that the Brethren involvement was reflected in the media.

It is interesting that Amy Adams acknowledged this afternoon the issue of whether it is philosophically reasonable for a political party or a candidate for election to have a limit on what it can spend, while a third party has no limit. She concluded that, philosophically, she does not have a problem with that. Clearly, National does not have a problem with that, which is why it is voting for this legislation this afternoon. She said that the limit of $300,000 is perhaps too low; she thought that $500,000 was more appropriate. In respect of that issue my colleague Hilary Calvert yesterday promoted an amendment to increase that cap to $500,000. It is a pity that that amendment was voted down.

Why would we look to increase that limit? I repeat that each of the major political parties in this House is entitled under this legislation to spend more than $5 million in next year’s election. I repeat that the figure is $5 million. We are restricting the rights of ordinary individuals, organisations, and associations who want to come together to form a campaign. They can spend no more than $300,000, or one-sixteenth of what each of the two major political parties will be entitled to spend in this campaign. I remind the House once again that both Labour and National spent more than $4 million in their campaigns at the last election, and under this legislation they will be entitled to spend more than $5.5 million.

I acknowledge the work of the Electoral Legislation Committee and its chair, Amy Adams. As I said earlier in this debate, I acknowledge the contributions of Lianne Dalziel and, in particular, Pete Hodgson, whom I got to know better through interacting with him through the work of the committee.

It interests me that Pete Hodgson referred again to being distressed or surprised that organisations such as the New Zealand Listener, which he referred to this afternoon, and the , whichhe referred to in last week’s debate, would actually express opposition to a limit. I say to Mr Hodgson that it should not surprise him, because they are standing up for the right of New Zealanders to speak out and be involved in an election campaign.

Mr Hodgson referred to people who do not physically put themselves up for election as the non-participants. That is what he called them. We have 122 successful MPs, and probably fewer than 1,000 people who physically put their names on a ballot paper, but Mr Hodgson referred to other New Zealanders as the non-participants. I say that the people of New Zealand have every right to have a say in how this country is run and to participate. They can participate by being involved in the election campaign of a particular individual or a party. They can throw their weight behind a campaign and deliver brochures and make phone calls, or they can form separate lobby organisations.

There is all manner of third parties. There are trade unions, business associations, and lobby groups that support a particular cause. I think of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, of Family First, and of the various trade unions. Each of those organisations should be able put out its case at the 3-yearly general elections. With this bill we are restricting them to spending no more than one-sixteenth of what the two major political parties in this Parliament can spend. Those two parties are using their voting strength to put those restrictions in place.

It is not the only restriction that the two major political parties impose on the smaller political parties in this House. It might surprise New Zealanders to know that it is illegal for a political party to use its own money to buy broadcasting time. As political parties, we cannot go out to the public, raise money, and buy television advertising. We have a broadcasting allowance. Each of the two major political parties gets $1 million worth of broadcasting time. The smaller parties at the last election—the Greens, the Māori Party, and New Zealand First—were given just over $240,000. The ACT Party was given $100,000. We do not have a level playing field. None of the smaller political parties is entitled to go out, raise money, and try to compete on an equal footing with the major political parties in this Parliament. Once again, the ACT Party thinks that is a disgrace.

Finally, I acknowledge that the process adopted by Simon Power was a far, far better process than that adopted by his predecessor in the Labour Government.

The ACT Party will not be voting for this bill; we will vote against it. One of the fundamental reasons we are doing that is that it puts restrictions on freedom of speech, which the New Zealand Herald, the , and most New Zealanders can see. It is a pity that Parliament is going to do that.

I sadly come back to the comments made by Metiria Turei. How tragic and how sad that a leader of a political party thinks so little of her fellow New Zealanders that she thinks that a party would give money to a cause only because of what they could get out of it. Thank you.

The past year has been one of highs and lows. Although the Government passed ACT’s “three strikes” policy into law to help protect all New Zealanders, it also implemented the emissions trading scheme, much to ACT’s disappointment. ACT opposes the emissions trading scheme as it is a costly, bureaucratic mess of a policy that is damaging our country and has unnecessarily increased the prices of electricity and petrol, and, worse still, paid massive subsidies to foresters.

We are out of line with, and in front of, our major trading partners. We have jumped the gun and are still running, and no one is following. As ACT suggested, a simple low-rate carbon tax was by far and away the best option as our contribution to a genuinely global effort while we waited to see the science develop and to see whether the rest of the world changed its mind.

ACT also opposed the anti-smacking law, which made criminals out of good parents, and, worse still, created uncertainty.

Catherine Delahunty: It didn’t.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Yes, it did.

The way the law purports to work is to require the police to act with discretion rather than apply the letter of the law. That is a disgraceful way to make and apply law. ACT proposed a better alternative, which would have made it clear where the boundaries are and would have protected good parents while punishing only the bad. It is a pity that that alternative did not see support from other parties in this House.

This year has also seen, once more, the foreshore and seabed issue come before the House. ACT is the only party that has maintained a consistent view on this issue, which is, simply, that iwi and hapū deserve the right to have their claims heard in open court. That is why we opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, and it is why we do not support the Government’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.

Next year, no doubt, will be equally busy, and I hope that every member of this House takes the coming break as an opportunity to get some rest in 2011. Today I would like to extend my thanks and best wishes to a number of people, beginning with my esteemed colleagues, Rodney Hide, leader of the ACT Party; Hilary Calvert, Sir Roger Douglas, and Heather Roy.

I thank also the staff at the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, who have been invaluable at assisting me in coming to grips with consumer affairs portfolio. I am very grateful for the hard work of my office staff, and I hope they all have a peaceful Christmas and a well-earned break. I wish the same for my staff in Auckland.

Thanks must also go to the Speaker, the Speaker’s office, the Office of the Clerk, the Serjeant-at-Arms, the messengers, the Chamber officials, security, VIP Transport Service, the travel office, Epicure Catering staff, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the Parliamentary Library staff.

I also wish a merry Christmas to ACT’s support partners: the Māori Party and Peter Dunne’s United Future. We three may not necessarily agree on everything, but we have a positive relationship that transcends our differences. To my parliamentary colleagues in Opposition, ACT extends its best wishes for a merry Christmas and a safe holiday break. Thank you

The first point we would like to make is that we congratulate National and the Hon Simon Power on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Let us acknowledge that absolutely up front, because the provisions in this bill are a very, very far cry from Labour’s original Electoral Finance Act. Let us not forget the history of the Electoral Finance Act; I noticed that Lianne Dalziel was happy to talk about the unpleasant 2005 election campaign, which I will come back to later, but the genesis of this bill was the moves by Labour prior to the last election to put in place a new regime on electoral finance and the conduct of elections. We should not forget the fact that one of the fundamental provisions of the original Electoral Finance Bill, when it went out to the public for submission, was a requirement that if any single person or organisation other than a candidate or a political party wanted to speak out in opposition to any other political candidate, before they so much as spent a single dollar, they had to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. That is hard to comprehend, but that is what the Labour politicians in this Parliament prior to the 2008 election voted for when they voted for the first reading of the then Labour Government’s Electoral Finance Bill. They said to the people of New Zealand that if they wanted to have any right to free speech and to participate in the election, they had to make a submission. The Labour Government said that as a very minimum it wanted those people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. There was a very significant demonstration of objection to that bill.

Hon Judith Collins: You were there.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: I am reminded by the Minister of Police, the Hon Judith Collins, that she was there marching down Queen Street with me when I was simply a member of the public speaking out about an issue that was very important to me and many, many other New Zealanders.

Let us look at some of the provisions of this bill and contrast it with what the previous Labour Government proposed—and in actual fact did. I acknowledge that, as a result of that widespread public opposition, the requirement for people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace before they so much as spent a single dollar was modified, and I think the limit was increased to $5,000. So the legislation as passed was not as bad as promoted, but certainly when it was put out for public discussion, it showed the contempt—the complete and utter contempt—with which Labour treated the people of New Zealand when it first promoted the legislation.

The Electoral Finance Bill as passed prior to the last election had a regulated period that applied from 1 January. For practical purposes, that could have been 10 or 11 months. We all know now that the election was in November 2008 and the legislation put restrictions on New Zealanders to speak out and criticise the Government of the time for 10½ months. One of the significant changes provided for in this bill is that that regulated period will be approximately 3 months. That is a very significant change. However, this bill still carries across the provisions from the previous Labour Government’s electoral finance legislation that restrict the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to participate in the election by limiting what so-called third parties can spend. Lianne Dalziel this afternoon talked about the use of vast sums of money. In her second reading speech she talked about “paid speech”. She talked about how people can go out and spend their own money and buy advertising.

Let us put those restrictions in context. This bill seeks to restrict the right of ordinary New Zealanders, either by themselves or in organisations, to spend no more than $300,000 running a campaign or being involved in an election campaign—that is, $300,000 for a third-party organisation. I do not care whether it is the Exclusive Brethren, the Catholics, the St John Ambulance, Family First, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, or the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union; it restricts the right of those individuals to spend no more than $300,000 of their own money. But let us put that in context. Under this bill, the two major political parties and their candidates are able to spend more than $5 million. In fact, it is about $5.5 million. But ordinary New Zealanders are restricted to spending less than one-sixteenth of what political parties reserve for themselves the right to spend.

I notice that Lianne Dalziel talked about the very, very unpleasant election campaign in 2005. Well, she may have unpleasant memories of 2005, but I have my own unpleasant memories. I recall, as I am sure many New Zealanders do, the very condescending remarks of the then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, as she looked down her nose on national television during the final debate of the election campaign and said goodbye to Mr Hide. She was trying to tell New Zealanders that the ACT Party was beaten for all money and would not be returning to Parliament. Mr Hide proved to Prime Minister Helen Clark and a lot of other members of the Labour Party how very, very wrong she was.

Lianne Dalziel talked about the perception that vast sums of money can influence an election. Once again, I put that $300,000 limit in the context of what we the politicians and political parties reserve to be able to spend ourselves. We are happy to pass legislation. Today we are passing legislation that will increase what a political party can spend—it will actually increase it. A formula currently set down in legislation allows a political party to spend just over $1 million plus $20,000 for every electorate in which it stands a candidate. That amount is being increased to $1,032,000 plus $25,000 per electorate in which it stands a candidate. So for National and Labour, with their broadcasting allocations, the figure will rise to some $5.5 million. Later on in this debate, ACT will be moving amendments to increase third-party spending limits, and I look forward to discussing those later in the debate.

I conclude by summarising what I have said on this part. The ACT Party strongly opposes the restrictions on third parties, and certainly the restriction that means they are allowed to spend only $300,000, or less than one-sixteenth of what the major political parties have the right to spend

Part Two:

I will take a brief call, in particular on clause 27 of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Clause 27 deals with the transitional provisions relating to donations. We had a contribution from Metiria Turei from the Green Party on the issue of donations; this clause raises the issue of why we actually disclose donations at all and, as a consequence, why we need clause 27, or any provisions relating to donations.

I am surprised that National members did not take the opportunity to speak on the first part of this bill, because in the last week we have seen a classic instance relating to donations. We are arguing whether a party should have to disclose donations of $10,000 or more, or of $15,000 or more. But what have we had from the Labour Party? Its candidate for the Auckland mayoralty has disclosed in the last week that his funds were paid into a separate trust, and that trust wrote a cheque. It was not for $10,000 or $15,000. How much do Labour members think it was for? It was for half a million dollars.

Hon Judith Collins: No! Big business.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: We would not know whether it was big business. We would not know whether it was 100 people putting in $5,000 each. Who knows? It could have been that Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $500,000. Perhaps Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $250,000. How do we justify that?

Let us put on the record the fact that the ACT Party believes in privacy. The ACT Party believes in people being able to spend their own money. The ACT Party believes in political parties being able to raise money, and it believes in the right of third parties to go out and raise money.

Let us look at the justification. What did Mr Brown say when he was asked about the cheque for half a million dollars that was written from his trust? One of his staffers was reputed to have said that their support has come from across the political spectrum—some left, some right—and they all believe in the vision of Mr Brown, and they would like privacy. They want the right to donate money to Mr Brown’s campaign. They do not want to be disclosed; they want that right.

The reason I raise this issue is that clause 27 specifically deals with the issue of donations. You may not have read clause 27, Mr Chairperson—you have a big job—but it talks about transitional provisions for donations. Essentially, in voting against this clause the ACT Party is saying that it should not be there at all. We actually support the spokesperson for Mr Brown. We support Len Brown, the Mayor of Auckland, selected by the Labour Party, whose spokesperson said that their supporters come from across the wide political spectrum and they are entitled to their privacy. That is what he said. He said that they were entitled to their privacy. They went out and raised that money and paid it into the “Support Len Brown for Mayor” trust, and the trust wrote a cheque. The ACT Party does not disagree with that. In fact, Mr Banks did the same thing—let us acknowledge that. Let us acknowledge that both Mr Banks and Mr Brown had supporting trusts that wrote cheques for a substantial sum.

I am very conscious of Labour. It often puts up speakers who say: “There is a word for that. One cannot say it in this Parliament, but it starts with ‘h’.” That is what we object to in this bill. Yes, there are restrictions on donations, and there are restrictions on what one has to disclose, but the ACT Party makes this point. The supporters of Mr Brown believe they should be able to support Mr Brown, whether they are from the left or the right, because they believe in Mr Brown’s vision for Auckland, and we think other New Zealanders should have the same right. If they support the vision of the Labour Party, they should be able to support the Labour Party and have their privacy protected. It is the same for those who support the vision of the Green Party, the National Party, the ACT Party, or the Māori Party. People are entitled to their privacy.

We will be voting against this part—[Interruption ]—and for the same reason we will be voting against the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have not called the member again. I say to the member that despite my request for people to focus on the bill, the member ranged over a whole range of things. Yes, the member mentioned clause 27, but even I can see past that. I say to the member that I will give him the call again if he is going to focus on this part of the bill.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I conclude by saying that the ACT Party is opposed to this part of the bill, as it is opposed to the whole bill.

We acknowledge the work that Mr Power has done and we certainly acknowledge, quite genuinely, Mr Power. I am sure Mr Power is well aware that this bill is a million miles away from what Labour, at the last election, inflicted on the people of New Zealand, and he is to be congratulated at least on that. Thank you.