Hon Christopher Finlayson

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): It is great to be back in the House, and I hope that everyone had a good summer, whether it was on the golf course, by the beach, or even, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, hooning around the North Island on a motorcycle. I hope everyone is looking forward to a lot of hard work, because, as the Prime Minister’s statement and the Order Paper show, this will be a very busy 2010.

I hate to say it, but I am very disappointed in the performance of the Labour Opposition this afternoon. From the moment the Prime Minister stood in this House to make his statement, most Labour members were yelling and screaming. One expects that kind of shameful behaviour from Mr Mallard, because he knows no better, but I have to say it was very disappointing. In my first 3 years in this House I was always told by the whips that when the then Prime Minister made a statement of the kind that Mr Key made this afternoon, we were to sit in silence. So I had to sit there and listen while Helen Clark announced her programme to suppress freedom of expression, to regulate the free exchange of ideas at election time, to remove the right of people to go to court, and so on.

Of course, the National Party believes in freedom of expression and the rule of law, which is why the Prime Minister’s statement refers to the excellent work that my friend and colleague the Minister of Justice is doing to reform the electoral finance law. Unlike the previous Labour Government, which introduced the Stalinist Electoral Finance Bill, the responsibility of Annette King, Mr Power has been undertaking extensive consultation with all Opposition parties, as well as with our own support parties.

Hon Annette King: That’s right. Say something nasty.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, she might yell and scream, because the member for Rongotai will forever be known as the mother of the Electoral Finance Act. That is the difference between Labour and National. Labour is disrespectful of convention, is disrespectful of human rights, and has no class.

One can understand why Jeannette Fitzsimons is so keen to clear out. As my ministerial duties will prevent me from being in the House tomorrow to listen to her valedictory speech, I say in advance how much I admire her as a principled and gentle member of Parliament. She proves the point of what John Kennedy once said: that civility is not a sign of weakness. I wish her all the best for the future, and I hope our paths will cross again.

What a privilege it has been to be here in the House this afternoon and listen to a statement by New Zealand’s first great Prime Minister of the 21st century. We have heard about an active and forward-looking programme of work that will grow our economy, make New Zealand safer and more prosperous, and improve the prospects of all New Zealanders. This Government is not afraid to make tough decisions. It is not afraid to set ambitious goals. As outlined in the statement that the Prime Minister tabled in the House this afternoon, one of the Government’s top priorities is progressing and resolving historic Treaty of Waitangi settlements in line with our goal of concluding those settlements by 2014, and our progress has been very good. I have to say our record could be classed as being somewhat better than the previous administration’s record. Even with Dr Cullen’s herculean efforts over 14 months, Labour only managed to achieve the less than stellar result of 1.6 settlements per year. Well, 1.6 settlements per year is not good enough for the National Government. Since coming to office, this Government has recognised eight deeds of mandate and signed seven terms of negotiation, 12 agreements in principle, and four final deeds of settlement.

I have had a very busy summer. Since the House rose, agreements in principle have been signed with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngati Manuhiri, and the five iwi of Te Hiku Forum. I had a great day in Ahipara for the Te Hiku Forum signings, together with Hone Harawira and Kelvin Davis. I did not see Shane Jones there, which I was disappointed about, I have to say, because even if Phil Goff does not enjoy his company, I do. The Muriwhenua claim, I say for the benefit of Ms King, was commenced by the late Mat Rata in 1986. The Waitangi Tribunal reported on it 1997 and the Labour Government, throughout its 9 long years, did nothing. I particularly place on record my thanks to Pat Snedden, my negotiator, and to the iwi negotiators, who worked very hard to achieve that excellent result. Moreover, since we began this year, three Crown offers have been made in Tāmaki-makau-rau, including to the Tāmaki collective for shared redress over the volcanic cones, and to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and to Kawerau o Maki Trust for comprehensive Treaty settlements. The Crown has recognised the mandate of Mana Ahuriri Incorporated, and also signed terms of negotiation with Ngāti Pūkenga.

I was very interested to hear Maryan Street say on the radio the other day that her concern about the Treaty portfolio was that care needed to be taken that all iwi are included, and that people do not feel sidelined, left out, or run over. That was a bit rich, coming from a representative of the previous Government, which did what it did in Tāmaki-makau-rau in 2006.

Nowhere is the difference in the approach of the two Governments more evident than in that particular settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal in 2007 slammed the previous Government for its handling of the Tāmaki-makau-rau negotiations. Among its findings were that the Crown’s conduct was inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty and that the Crown failed to fulfil its duty to act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith. It added that if the Crown were to continue down the path prefigured in the agreement in principle, the settlement would certainly create new grievances for the other tangata whenua groups. Is that not impressive? In the Auckland area, which accounts for 20 percent of outstanding claims, Ms Street’s Government achieved nothing but stagnation. Why? Because that Government thought it would be easier to negotiate with only one iwi out of 22—the others could be sidelined. They were left out and they were run over by the previous Labour Government, in which Ms Street was a Minister. One of my first acts on becoming the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was to appoint Sir Douglas Graham as Crown facilitator in the region, to develop a negotiations framework that would bring a fresh approach and get the ball rolling in Auckland. It is crucial that we make good progress in Auckland; those people have been waiting for too long.

Ms Street also said she is concerned that new grievances will be created because of the speed that is being applied to the Treaty settlement process. That comes from the member whose party brought us the Foreshore and Seabed Act, an Act opposed by 94 percent of New Zealanders, so that is indeed a bit rich. National knows the importance of durability. This Government’s goal of settling all historical Treaty claims by 2014 is not just for the Crown; it is especially for iwi. Iwi are telling me constantly how anxious they are to make progress quickly. This Government realises that to delay settlements any longer than necessary creates new grievances.

Today’s speech by the Leader of the Opposition showed that Labour has learnt nothing from its errors. Phil Goff’s speech sounded like the same vein-popping, empty, angry rant that we heard last year. It was the same speech—poor old formulaic Phil Goff. We begin 2010 with Labour led by two relics of the 1980s. Phil Goff was elected in 1981, and in 2011 he will have been here for 30 years, apart from his 3 years’ enforced sabbatical when he lost Mt Roskill to Gilbert Myles. What an embarrassment it was to lose to Gilbert Myles—though I know the feeling, because I lost to Annette King! Phil Goff is the same person who voted for the introduction of GST in 1986, and for the increase in GST to 12.5 percent. Phil Goff has held more portfolios than anyone other than Jack Marshall, but he has achieved nothing. He has been in office, but he has not been in power.

Let me end as I began. This is not a time for boorishness from Trevor Mallard, nor is it a time for negativism. The holiday is over; it is back to work. I wish all members well as we embark on this Government’s busy legislative programme. I look forward to working with everyone, in my customary bipartisan manner.