Menu:

 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I endorse everything that the previous speaker, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, said in his excellent speech. To the outsider it may seem as though this is all dancing on top of a pinhead—what is in words? But the challenge for the Māori Affairs Committee, which, as the Minister said, worked in a very professional and collegial way, was to turn concepts into words that were acceptable to the tangata whenua of Tauranga.
 
 
Part 3 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : Part 3 deals with amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975—legislation as important as any in the history of this Parliament.
 
 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I intend to take only a relatively short call in the second reading debate on this legislation, which the National Party supports. The members of the Māori Affairs Committee enjoyed the relatively brief submissions, which focused on Part 2 and Part 4. But I will acknowledge in passing the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board. My friend Mrs te Heuheu and I had a very pleasant visit at Te Kūiti a few weeks ago with that board. It does good work, and we are delighted to be able to make those minor changes and to acknowledge the great work it does.

Of course, Ngāti Maniapoto have not had their Treaty settlement yet, and I certainly hope that they do manage to achieve it in the next few years. I recall going to their trust board. It has had some outstanding New Zealanders as members on the board and in people from Ngāti Maniapoto. I noticed the photo of the Hon Koro Wētere, for example, on the wall. This iwi has made a huge contribution to New Zealand over the years.

I will not dwell on Part 2, although like my friend Mrs te Heuheu I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of representatives of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board. They, too, were very generous in welcoming representatives of the National Party to Taupō a few months ago. We enjoyed our visit with them, and we are delighted at the huge progress they are making in terms of their various Treaty settlement claims.

I want to say something about Part 3, because it raises two important issues. The first relates to the constitution of the tribunal. As the previous speaker and other speakers have said, the numbers on the tribunal will be increased from 16 members to 20. As I said in my first reading speech, I certainly hope that the Government will properly resource the tribunal, particularly by appointing increased numbers of historian members. In my experience of appearing before the tribunal, I think that that is the area where there is a real need, and with the retirement of various distinguished historian members of the tribunal over the years, I believe that they need to be replaced, and replaced very soon. It is all very well to increase the numbers on the tribunal, but the tribunal needs to be properly resourced so that it can deal regularly with the various applications before it, rather than undertake the stop-start approach it is forced to because it is starved of funds.

The second point I wish to dwell on in terms of Part 3 is a drafting matter, but it is a sensible measure and relates to section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Because of drafting practice, section 6 over the years has become larger and larger due to repetitive amendment. It is proposed that when one has a Treaty settlement, instead of amending section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the enactments to which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is subject will be referred to in a new schedule 3 to the 1975 Act, and I think that that is a very sensible move. It is hardly a matter of great contention. It will mean that when an incoming National Government gets on with the business of settling these very important claims, instead of constantly coming back to Parliament to amend the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the settlements and the enactments to which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is subject can simply be set out in schedule 3 of that Act.

It is very sad, though, when one looks at the proposed new schedule 3, to note just how poor the performance of this Government has been in the last 9 years. It has had every opportunity to build on the huge contribution to this incredibly important process that was initiated by Doug Graham and Jim Bolger, but members should look at the record over the last 9 years. When one looks at the proposed new schedule 3 of the bill, one sees the failure of this Government writ large. It is very disappointing that all the statutes referred to in schedule 3 relate to settlements that were begun under a National Government. This Government has failed in many areas, but nowhere more starkly and more sadly than in the area of Treaty settlements. It is all very well to deal with the machinery of the 1975 Act, but it is quite another thing to embark on the settlement process with enthusiasm, optimism, and faith in the future of our country. That approach has been singularly lacking under the various useless Ministers in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in this Government.

So there we have it. This bill is largely an uncontroversial piece of legislation, but I felt I should make a brief statement about the changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, because that will be an area where the John Key - National Government will be working very hard for Māori and for all New Zealanders.
 
 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I listened closely to that caring, sharing speech from the member for Palmerston North. I have to say that I agree with him about the principle of cooperation at the Social Services Committee, especially when one is dealing with extremely sensitive issues such as this, where there is a balancing act, which I will talk about in a few minutes.
 
 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I am delighted that the Green member Sue Bradford mentioned the Blackball Workingmen’s Club, because on Easter Sunday I was there with Mr Auchinvole for the seminar that was held as part of the weekend commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Blackball strike. What happened was that Mr Auchinvole asked me whether I would like to attend, and being open-minded, liberal in spirit, and a student of history I accepted with alacrity. It helps that Blackball is one of my favourite towns and the coast is my favourite part of New Zealand.

I am sure Ms Bradford would confirm that it was a most enjoyable day. Indeed, Mr Auchinvole and I were made very welcome by the good people of Blackball, by the trade unionists, and by most of the other attendees, including, I am pleased to say, Sue Bradford, who is always pleasant, and the Hon Lianne Dalziel. However, a couple of Labour MPs were typically rude and unfriendly!

Just before lunch we were told that the Hon Maryan Street would make an announcement. I have to say she was very pleasant, too. She acknowledged her colleagues and Sue Bradford by their parties. She mentioned Mr Auchinvole and me, but she could not bring herself to say the dreaded word “National”. Anyway, she made an announcement about breaks and breastfeeding, and she announced the introduction of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. As Ms Wilkinson said, we will support the bill’s referral to the select committee so the committee can have a good look at it. It is interesting that this legislation was announced at Blackball, where Chris Trotter said the Labour Party did not belong because it was formed about 13 years after the Blackball incident.

I became very interested in the issue of meal breaks, given the lecture that had been given before lunch by an excellent Dunedin historian and by Chief Judge Graeme Colgan of the Employment Court. I think it is worth recounting what happened and what gave rise to the Blackball strike, which, of course, has culminated in this legislation today.

Chris Auchinvole: What did happen?

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, there was a fellow called Pat Hickey. As the name suggests he was a good Irishman. He was born, I think, on the outskirts of Nelson in the Waimea Plains, and he went overseas and joined the Wobblies. I am sure that the member for Christchurch Central would not know what a Wobbly was, but those of us who are interested in industrial history do know these things—it was an American union. Pat came back to New Zealand and he had been radicalised.

After spending some time in Denniston, he decided—I think everyone in Denniston decided, as well—that it would be in the interests of all concerned if he went off to Blackball. That is what he did, and he was employed in one of the mines in Blackball. It seems that the manager of one of the mines was a Mr Leach, and I have to say that he did not sound to me to be a particularly pleasant man. One day he stood over Mr Hickey and demanded that Mr Hickey get back to work. Pat said he wanted to finish his pie, and the said Mr Leach stood over him—it could have been with a stopwatch or a watch—and ordered him back to work, saying that his 15-minute crib-time was over. That gave rise to the strike, because Pat thought he was entitled to proper crib-time. So it was a very antagonistic setting. I think I said to Mr Auchinvole on that day that if I had been Pat Hickey and had been spoken to like that by Mr Leach, Mr Leach would have received my pie in a certain part of his face.

It seems, however, that an important fact had been overlooked. The unions had had 30 minutes’ crib-time made available to them as a result of negotiations with the company but had voluntarily given up that crib-time and reduced it to 15 minutes because they wanted to get out of the mines 15 minutes earlier—and who can blame them? So it seems that notwithstanding my immediate sympathy for Pat Hickey, the unionists got the wrong end of the stick. The strike occurred because poor old Pat Hickey got his facts wrong, and it seems to me that that often happens with trade unionists. So those were the facts—

Sue Moroney: No, no.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —and if the member had been there—[Interruption] Oh, was the member there? Then she should have been listening. Judge Colgan was asked what he would have done if he had been the judge dealing with those matters on the basis of the facts as were shown to be the case, and he said he would have applied the law accordingly.

So they are important facts, and it is worth saying that this matter, which so excited the Labour MPs and Mr Auchinvole and me that we went to Blackball on Easter Sunday, concerns a strike that proceeded on the basis of an error of fact. It is important to recount this interesting history for the benefit of the House. I certainly found it interesting.

I was interested in the Minister’s announcement, and I hope the select committee has a good look at the legislation, because it raises some important issues. I am particularly interested in the purpose clause, which talks about time being provided to employees for rest breaks and meal breaks. It seems to me that it is very much a classic case of Labour saying one thing and doing another. Last Thursday in Auckland, for example, members of the Justice and Electoral Committee were suffering under the chairmanship of Lynne Pillay, who, perhaps, is Labour’s answer to Mr Leach. We went for 8 hours without a break, notwithstanding my numerous requests for crib-time. Pat Hickey got 15 minutes of crib-time, but how much time did we get? We got nothing. Lynne Pillay is a tough customer. I just hope that the Justice and Electoral Committee will take a good look at crib-time for members of Parliament when Lynne Pillay is chair of that select committee. Jokes aside, this legislation raises important issues. I was delighted to be at Blackball to hear the announcement, and I will be delighted to see the progress of the bill in the coming weeks.
 
 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to address the emergence of technologies such as the Internet. During the Committee stage I dealt at length with particular matters in both Parts 1 and 2, and I do not intend to repeat those comments here.
 
 
Part 2 Amendments to Parts 6 to 11 of Copyright Act 1994

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : My call on this part will be relatively brief because Dr Worth has dealt in some detail with technological protection measures, but there are two issues that I want to raise. As we know, and both speakers have referred to it, the bill deals with technological protection measures but it limits the scope of these measures to those that protect established rights of copyright owners and, as the report of the Commerce Committee says, it specifically excludes the so-called access controls. That is an issue that we may need to revisit at some stage in the future. It is a very interesting issue.
 
 
Part 1 Amendments to Parts 1 to 5 of Copyright Act 1994

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : There are five issues I want to consider in Part 1, which deals with a number of very important matters. The first issue will be the meaning of the term “communication work”, the second issue will be the position of persons known as “educational resource suppliers”, the third issue will be the parallel importation of films, the fourth issue will be the position of Internet service providers, and the fifth issue is known as the “section 88” issue. Earlier in the day the Minister very kindly provided me with the Supplementary Order Paper on which she has set out the amendments she proposes. What I will do, as I go through the various issues I wish to discuss, is touch on the amendments that she wishes to make.
 
 
Clauses 1, 2, and 2A  

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I can be relatively brief on these clauses. This is very important legislation, and I think that Mr Gallagher is right when he says it will become more important in the years to come. The first copyright Act, as I said, was that of the Statute of Anne in 1712, and of course the last substantive amendment to New Zealand law was the 1994 legislation, which basically followed, insofar as copyright was concerned, the 1988 Act from the United Kingdom.