Thursday, 16 February 2012

Thursday, 16 February 2012

Thursday, 16 February 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Next week the House is in a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 28 February the Government will look to conclude the Address in Reply debate. The Government will also progress a number of readings, particularly first readings, on the Order Paper, including further progress on the Search and Surveillance Bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Just seeking an assurance from the Leader of the House that no select committees will be sitting during the National Party maiden speeches this afternoon.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Not to my knowledge. If there is something happening that I am not aware of, the member might want to talk to me off-line about that.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to have this question moved down to below question No. 12 so that the Prime Minister will have a chance to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to have question No. 1 relocated to below question No. 12. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Has he had time to read and digest the judgement of Justice Miller regarding the Crafar farm deal; if so, does he stand by his comments made in the House yesterday?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: He has read the judgment and he stands by his comments.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To which law was the Prime Minister referring when he claimed in the House yesterday that the law—and to use his words—“does not allow Ministers to reverse OIO advice”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think what the Prime Minister was referring to was the requirement that all Ministers act within the law, and that the expectation that the advice coming from the Overseas Investment Office would, in fact, be within the law.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was worse than yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister yesterday argue that the Ministers Jonathan Coleman and Maurice Williamson should rely on the same view as the Overseas Investment Office?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The expectation of all Ministers is that they should be able to rely on the advice of their officials. In relying on that advice, they come to their own conclusion, within the law.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do the two Ministers not have their own officials? That being the case, what scrutiny independent of the Overseas Investment Office—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Stupid question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I will say it again very slowly for the so-called learned gentleman down there—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: But you heard what he said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet, and that will be the end of any further interjection. I get to my feet to stop this childish backwards and forwards across the House. I say to the honourable gentleman on my right that such interjections do not exactly help with good order in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What scrutiny independent of the Overseas Investment Office did his Ministers apply to the Overseas Investment Office report on the Crafar purchase?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Prime Minister would expect all Ministers to exercise their judgment based on the advice that is put in front of them. It is patently obvious that all those decisions are reviewable. That is why we are in this situation now.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are not going to get anywhere if we are going to get that sort of answer. I asked whether the two Ministers concerned had got independent advice, independent of the Overseas Investment Office. That is what I want to know.

Mr SPEAKER: In the circumstances I will allow the Rt Hon Winston Peters to repeat the question he asked, to make sure everyone understands exactly what it is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What scrutiny independent of the Overseas Investment Office did his Ministers apply to the Overseas Investment Office report on the Crafar purchase?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I doubt that is the first question word for word. However, what I would say again is that the Prime Minister expects all Ministers to exercise their judgment based on the information that is provided to them by their officials. Their officials, in many cases, are not aligned to the Overseas Investment Office.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I got the Prime Minister’s answer, but the question asked of him was did they receive, or did they seek, any advice independent of the Overseas Investment Office. That is pretty simple.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is correct; his question did exactly ask that. In his answer the Minister referred to advice from the officials. Although he did not specifically say the Ministers received advice from their own, independent officials, I picked up that from his answer. But if I am wrong there, he had better correct me. It seems that that is what the Minister intended.

Hon David Parker: Did the legal test always require the benefits from overseas ownership to be substantial and identifiable?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I understand is that is the case, but it is the way in which that conclusion was reached that is the contention, and, ultimately, the judgment that has come down. So instead of that test—better before or after—it is now with or without. It is a fine technical point. The judge makes that clear. He has also invited Ministers to reconsider it on that basis, which they will do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister ignore section 17 of the Overseas Investment Act in response to a question in the House yesterday asking how he had arrived at the view that his two Ministers, to use his words, had no discretion at all?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, the first point is the Prime Minister has no responsibility in this case directly, and he was correct in saying that his Ministers were appropriately following advice given to them by their officials, assessed and judged by themselves. The point is that the decision, in any event, has been reviewed by the court, and the court has made a recommendation about a reconsideration, and that will take place.

Hon David Parker: Is the reality not that the court did what his Minister failed to do: it applied the economic benefit test and found no identifiable evidence that the overseas buyer would produce any substantial benefit to New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The test applied by the Overseas Investment Office was the same test that it used to advise a former Minister, the Hon David Parker, in his decisions on these matters. The question is should the test be applied on a before or after basis, or on a with or without basis? The court has ordered it is with or without, and has invited Ministers to reconsider, and that is what they will do.

Dr Russel Norman: How were the Ministers able to exercise their judgment in this case, while at the same time following the Prime Minister’s direction that they had no discretion?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the point is that all of these decisions are reviewable, and, on the evidence put in front of the Ministers, it was patently clear, using the before or after test, which has now been decided is inappropriate, they had—[Interruption] It was decided that, on the before or after test, asking the questions that are required through the four points inside that particular part of the more than 20 points that have to be considered in the test, they had exercised their judgment appropriately.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to why the public should not assume that the two Ministers in question took the view that the Prime Minister keeps on defending, which is that they had no discretion at all, and therefore applied no independent thought or judgment at all, and just rubber-stamped the Crafar deal?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Ministers have acted totally appropriately. They were entitled to believe that the advice they had got from their officials was consistent with the advice that had been offered over the previous 7 years. For a large number of those years the member himself was supporting the Government in those decisions. It was never a problem when he was supporting the Government; apparently, it is now.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He cannot go on to a personal attack of me when it is well known that he and others got rid of New Zealand First and Winston Peters because we were stopping their—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The right honourable member knows that is not a point of order, under any guise whatsoever. It was successful, though, in stopping the Minister’s answer. I presume the Minister, therefore, has finished his answer. Yes, he has finished his answer.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister have any other concerns about the way the Overseas Investment Office is carrying out its functions, in light of comments this morning from the director of the Overseas Investment Office that in applying the economic benefit test they never take any account of the economic downside or economic detriment that might result from foreign investment, such as an increase in the current account deficit?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. They have applied the law appropriately for 7 years, and have got to a point where one small aspect of the tests that were put in place all those 7 years ago does need to be reconsidered in a different light—so going from before and after to with or without. I would ask why it is that after, you know, 7 years of this Act being operative, suddenly those who were party to passing it are so very concerned—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is sufficient.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister now accept that those of us who have opposed the operation of this system all along, such as the Green Party, have been absolutely correct to oppose it, because the Overseas Investment Office has been incorrectly applying the test, as Justice Miller pointed out in the judicial review?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Justice Miller has made that point, and Ministers will act within that judgment for any future applications and for the reconsideration of this application. Other than that, the Overseas Investment Office has operated inside the bounds that were prescribed in the law by a previous Government.

Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms

2. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for Land Information: Does he believe he and the Government have conducted themselves competently and appropriately in relation to the decision to approve the purchase of the Crafar farms by a foreign buyer; if not, what did they do wrong?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information): Yes.

Hon David Parker: Why did the Minister say on several occasions that he had to approve the sale of the Crafar farms to Shanghai Pengxin under the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement, when the High Court found that the Overseas Investment Office’s written advice to him was the opposite?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Because, as I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee told the House a few minutes ago, for 7 years under both a Labour and a National Government the before and after economic benefit test was the test that the Overseas Investment Office used—on the James Cameron application or the Shania Twain application or any of the others that have gone through it.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Very interesting, but my question was why he used the cover of the Chinese free-trade agreement—

Mr SPEAKER: The member may repeat his question.

Hon David Parker: Why did the Minister on several occasions say that he had to approve the sale of the Crafar farms to Shanghai Pengxin under the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement, when the High Court found that the Overseas Investment Office’s written advice to him was the opposite?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Because we were applying the test we believed to be appropriate—the one that had been used. The fact is that Ministers’ decisions are subject to judicial review, just like the Hon Chris Carter lost in the courts over the Whangamata waterways, and—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has still not addressed the issue—

Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member’s concern is. The question specifically asked why the Minister had said, allegedly on more than one occasion, that he had to approve the deal because of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement, which has nothing to do with the previous practice under the Overseas Investment Office, because the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement is relatively recent. That is the bit, I think, because the question covered only that issue.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I can be helpful.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister can be helpful, I will be very—[Interruption] Order! If the Minister can be helpful to the House, that is great.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I said in the House in question time on Tuesday that this application and its processes went through, regardless of whether we had a free-trade agreement with China or not.

Hon David Parker: Why did it take 9 months from the time of Shanghai Pengxin’s application to his erroneous decision? Was it because it took that long for the Government to stitch up a deal involving Landcorp?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It took that long because the Overseas Investment Office wanted to get all of the relevant information it needed, and it went back to the applicants on a number of occasions to further get that information. I am pleased that the office took the right amount of time, and did not try to rush it.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that at no stage did any Minister of the Government or any official from the Overseas Investment Office tell any party that they were delaying their decisions until after the election?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well, that is not what happened, and I most certainly did not say that; I do not think I can speak for every other human being there is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: What has happened here is that I have just been told by the Hon Trevor Mallard that the Labour Party is giving a further supplementary question to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. These are meant to be advised to the Speaker prior to the start of question time. However—[Interruption] Order! I do not want to be difficult, but I just ask members in the future, please, to make sure that the Speaker is advised of these things a little more in advance than at the moment that members get to their feet.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for the late notice. It will be obvious to everyone that the answers are the reason for—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not an acceptable point of order either. It was barely much better than the one we heard not so long ago. It was just being used to criticise another member of this House, and that is not allowed under the point of order process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I will get you notice, next time, much earlier, but it was the nature of the question. I want to ask the Minister this: if he is explaining the proper due diligence done by the Overseas Investment Office on the issues he talks about as taking 9 months, why then did it take over 12 months for the same office to determine that May Wang and Jack Chen were of good character, when one phone call to the Shanghai or Hong Kong stock exchange would have told them otherwise?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I do not know whether I can ever comment on the process that the Overseas Investment Office goes through. It took its time to make a determination about the bid. And in the case of Natural Dairy—the member will be pleased—the Overseas Investment Office recommended that the Government not approve it.

Economy—2012 Budget Policy Statement

3. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has the Government issued on the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government has today issued the Budget Policy Statement for 2012. It confirms the Government’s clear and comprehensive economic plan for the next 3 years, which will make our economy more competitive so it can fulfil its potential. Within this plan the Government has set out four main priorities to help achieve this. They are to continue to responsibly manage the Government’s finances by returning to surplus and keeping debt under control; to continue to implement economic policies that build a more competitive, export-focused economy; to deliver better public services to New Zealanders within a tight fiscal Budget; and to rebuild our second-biggest city, Christchurch.

Jonathan Young: How will the Government’s economic plan be reflected in Budget 2012?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As the Budget Policy Statement says, Budget 2012 will be, first and foremost, about sticking to the Government’s economic plan. It is important that we do that to build a stronger, more competitive economy that supports more sustainable jobs and higher incomes, and ensures that New Zealand starts to pay its way in the world. Indeed, the Government’s Budget priorities throughout this parliamentary term will be about sticking to that plan.

Jonathan Young: What does the Budget Policy Statement say about the outlook for the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Budget Policy Statement sets out some updated forecasts from Treasury. They show that New Zealand’s economic outlook, although somewhat weaker than forecast in the pre-election update in October, remains positive. Our terms of trade are expected to remain high. Our largest trading partners, particularly China and Australia, are among the stronger-performing countries in the world. And the rebuilding of Christchurch will provide impetus to the economy in coming years. However, there is a risk that events offshore, particularly in Europe, could have a negative impact on the New Zealand economy. The Government continues to monitor those events closely.

Hon David Parker: Does the Budget Policy Statement show a rising current account deficit, as well as higher Government debt and lower growth in the coming years than were promised by National during the election?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Budget Policy Statement does show a worsening economic situation, which has a negative impact on the balance of payments and one or two of the other matters the member raises. And that has effectively caused, as stated in the Budget Policy Statement, a delay to the Canterbury rebuild, brought about by the additional seismic activity and also the more troubling clouds in Europe in the economies over there. So those things all have an impact on the predictions in this particular statement.

Jonathan Young: And how is the latest economic outlook expected to impact on the Government’s finances?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Budget Policy Statement forecasts show that the Government remains on track to post a $370 million surplus in 2014-15, to keep net debt below 30 percent of GDP, and to reduce this to 20 percent of GDP by 2020-21. Given the events in Europe and the weakened outlook for global growth, this forecast is understandably smaller than was forecast in the pre-election update, but the Government does remain on its fiscal track to surplus. It will, however, require disciplined control of spending and tight management of our capital allocations. For example, we have conferred net zero capital allowances for each of the next five Budgets, requiring new investments to be funded from capital freed up from the balance sheet rather than by additional borrowing.

Benefits—Work and Income Case Management Approach

4. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have confidence that Work and Income meets their own “case management approach” expectations?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes. Work and Income deals with 147 million transactions a year. That is 2.8 million transactions a week and 403,000 transactions a day. The Minister believes Work and Income staff work very hard and she backs them.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she believe the level of support a sole parent on the domestic purposes benefit can access in order to move into work or education is sufficient?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Yes; there are a number of benefits and assistance packages that women on the domestic purposes benefit, or anyone on the domestic purposes benefit, can access in order to get into education. It depends on which level of education they wish to access as to how those benefits will be applied. But they are available, for instance, for university study in the form of student loans and allowances; for lower-level qualifications—levels 1, 2, and 3—that they are seeking, they can still receive the training incentive allowance.

Jacinda Ardern: How much can someone on the domestic purposes benefit who wants to move into education, and who has one dependent child and no income, receive per hour per child to assist with childcare?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It is a very precise question, given the primary question, but as I understand it a person on the domestic purposes benefit with one child is able to receive the normal domestic purposes benefit. She may well be entitled to accommodation supplements on top of that. She is also entitled to early childhood education and childcare allowances on top of that. She is able to receive student loans in respect of meeting the fees for each paper, and also a $1,000 grant for course-related costs.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table the details of the childcare subsidy, which states that the mother shall be—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before we go into that, what is the source of this document?

Jacinda Ardern: It is available publicly, but given the Minister was unable to answer the specific question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was just grandstanding; we do not do that under a point of order. Silly me! Let me reword that. We should not do that under a point of order.

Jacinda Ardern: What is the difference in support a solo mum with one dependent child and no income will be eligible for if she wishes to study and approaches StudyLink versus if that same solo mother went to Work and Income, and why is there such a difference?

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Chester Borrows, in so far as he is able to give an answer, in the breadth of the primary question.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I would draw attention to the breadth of this question away from the primary question, which related to expectations of people approaching a case manager at Work and Income.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The original question obviously relates to an issue of the day, where Work and Income have given inadequate advice to a domestic purposes benefit mum, and part of that was her getting very different advice from both StudyLink and Work and Income. So all of this does relate to the adequacy of the advice that Work and Income staff—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! My advice to the member is, if she wants Ministers to have that kind of detail available to answer questions, make the primary question more clear. With all respect, this primary question is very broad and it is not reasonable to expect that the Minister could have that level of detail, given that primary question.

Jacinda Ardern: To what does she attribute our status as having one of the highest rates of unemployment for sole parents in the OECD, next to Turkey and Malta: a lack of willingness to work, as her welfare reform package implies, or the barriers to work, as the reality suggests?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: The finding on New Zealand’s provision of services to people wishing to study who are in receipt of a domestic purposes benefit, in respect of other OECD countries, was not made by the Minister but in fact by an independent organisation. It is interesting to note that there is lots of assistance available to sole parents. Even without the training incentive allowance, there is extensive support available for domestic purposes benefit recipients studying at tertiary level, including interest-free student loans, student allowances, childcare subsidies, the accommodation supplement, out-of-school care and recreation subsidies, 20 hours’ free early childhood education, temporary additional support, special-needs grants, and so on, and these are not available in many other countries.

Benefits—Effect of Training Incentive Allowance Changes

5. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have concerns that changes to the eligibility for the Training Incentive Allowance are causing single parent beneficiaries to consider working in the sex industry?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: No.

Jan Logie: Does she think it is fair that single-parent beneficiary Tania Wysocki is reluctantly considering sex work to cover the cost of travel and childcare associated with her high-level veterinary nursing degree, whereas these costs would be covered by the training incentive allowance were she studying for a lower-level course?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I find it very difficult to accept that somebody is forced into prostitution in order to study. People may have to choose between earning an income through work, and studying. There are no easy options for a solo parent, but there is considerable support available, as outlined in answer to the previous question.

Jan Logie: Does she accept that the childcare subsidy offered to Tania Wysocki does not cover the full costs of childcare, whereas the training incentive allowance would meet the additional costs beyond the subsidy?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Ms Wysocki was quoted in an article from the New Zealand Herald, and the subsidies available to Ms Wysocki are not those quoted in the New Zealand Herald. The reporter was given an indication of those subsidies orally; he chose not to write them. It is important to note that Ms Wysocki receives the equivalent of a salary of $43,000 a year plus her entitlement to 20 hours’ early childhood education. I think most New Zealanders would find that an equivalent salary of $43,000 is sufficient, or at least reasonable.

Jan Logie: Does it concern her that it took a visit with Tania’s local MP, Paul Hutchison; a letter to John Key; unanswered correspondence with the Minister’s own office; multiple conversations with Work and Income; and, finally, media attention for Tania to receive her full benefit entitlements, and that even then this offer of assistance is not enough to keep her from considering sex work as a way to make ends meet while studying?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I refer to my answer to the previous supplementary question as to the level of assistance Ms Wysocki is getting. I also need to indicate that a Work and Income employee, in giving out advice as to what level of assistance an applicant can be given, is constrained by the information given by that applicant. We understand that once the full details were known as to the hours of study that she needed to do, her ability to obtain childcare was raised from the 9 hours originally offered.

Jan Logie: Do you accept—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no, questions do not ask “do you accept”; they—

Jan Logie: Oh, OK—sorry. [Interruption] No, I am just—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Be reasonable.

Jan Logie: Does the Minister accept that Tania is financially worse off studying without receiving the training incentive allowance?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: The training incentive allowance has been redirected to those people most in need. What we do know is that half the women on the domestic purposes benefit have not achieved a level of education of National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1 or foundation course skills. So we have redirected the training incentive allowance to those people to get the best results for the investment of the taxpayers’ money.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a direct question: is she financially worse off without receiving the training incentive allowance—a yes or no question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order, I say to members! Please, I am on my feet. If I heard correctly, the member asked whether or not the Minister believed the person in question was worse off without the training incentive allowance. That is seeking an opinion. But it would be helpful if the Minister did refer to the difference between someone in her position having, in theory, a training incentive allowance and not having a training incentive allowance, rather than giving the reasons why. The Minister is giving the reasons why the Government chose, it seemed to me, to redirect the training incentive allowance; that was not what the question asked. It is seeking an opinion, there is no precise answer, and we will not insist on yes or no. But it would be helpful if the answer did refer to the question asked, which is to do with whether the person is better off or not. It was even hypothetical—whether they would be better off or not with the training incentive allowance. Some reference to that would be helpful.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify that my wording was “to accept”—and I do think there is a differentiation between “believe” and “accept”—and it is around a point of fact.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise. But it is still seeking an opinion. The member asked whether the member accepts that someone is worse off. That is not what she said when she repeated her question. When she repeated her question she said: “Is such-and-such worse off?”, whereas she acknowledges now that her original question was: “Does the Minister accept …”, and that is seeking an opinion. But it would be helpful if the opinion did bear some relationship to the question asked.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: The Minister does not accept that this particular applicant is worse off under the new rules in respect of the training incentive allowance. The Minister believes that the Government assistance she receives and the assistance she could apply for leave her in a very healthy position in terms of extending her own education.

District Health Boards—Results of Collaboration

6. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister of Health: What improvements have there been to services for patients as a result of greater collaboration between District Health Boards?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The Hutt Valley District Health Board and the Capital and Coast District Health Board have been working together to provide faster access to magnetic resonance imaging for their patients. In March last year, I am told, there were 760 patients waiting longer than 6 months to have routine magnetic resonance imaging at Wellington Regional Hospital. That waiting list has now been completely cleared and no one is waiting longer than 4 months. More scans are now being done at the Hutt Hospital and an after-hours radiology registrar has been provided there instead of relying on services from Australia. This is a very good example of what can be achieved when neighbouring district health boards work together.

Dr Cam Calder: What improvement has there been to waiting times for ultrasounds in Wairarapa?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Hutt Valley District Health Board and the Wairarapa District Health Board have worked together to reduce the waiting time for ultrasounds from 9 months last year to less than 2 months today. Additional clinics provided at Hutt Hospital have cleared the backlog, and now a sonographer is travelling from the Hutt Valley to Masterton for a clinic 1 day per week. This more efficient service sees fewer cancellations, less rebooking, and more certainty for patients, and is a very good example of district health boards working together to provide faster services for patients.

State-owned Energy Companies, Sales—Crown Shareholding

7. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he still intend to sell 49 per cent of the four State-owned energy companies?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): The Government’s position has always been that it would sell up to 49 percent of the companies and so would retain at least 51 percent ownership. The Government’s intentions remain subject to market conditions.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister now give an absolute guarantee to New Zealanders that the Crown’s stake in the four State-owned energy companies up for sale will never fall below 51 percent?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think we can give more than the guarantee of the Minister. That is the intention of the legislation that the Government intends to introduce—to give an assurance that the Crown’s ownership will not fall below 51 percent.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: In light of that answer, could he outline whether, in the event of the companies needing more capital, the Government would borrow and/or use additional taxpayers’ funds to ensure that the Crown’s stake never falls below 51 percent?

Hon TONY RYALL: That would be the Government’s intention: if there was additional capital required for the company and it made sense for that capital to be raised, the Government would bring forward its contribution.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: If the revenue from the asset sales is less than the Government’s estimated $6 billion, which its stated intention is to use for the so-called Future Investment Fund to offset debt, will the Government be forced to borrow additional funds to make up that difference?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member is asking whether if the sales proceeds do not reach $6 billion, we would borrow money in order to make up the difference to pay back the money and the debt that we are trying to reduce? No, the Government is expecting, and has been working within, a range of $5 billion to $7 billion resulting from the asset sales.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why has the Government only now woken up to the fact, via Mr English’s comments in the media in the last 24 hours, that there is a high risk of its 51 percent controlling interest being diluted, when a Treasury report entitled Extending the Mixed Ownership Model, dated 4 March 2011, warned that if the Government wants to keep its majority stake then “any further raisings will require Government participation to avoid dilution”? Does that not fly in the face of the Prime Minister’s comments that the reason for the asset sale float was because the Government could not afford to put extra capital in?

Hon TONY RYALL: There is nothing new in this point. I was in a select committee and Mr Norman from the Green Party asked me that question, I think, in the middle of last year.

Local Authorities—Rates Increases Since 2002

8. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Local Government: What analysis has he received on rate increases across New Zealand’s 78 councils following the enactment of new local government legislation in 2002?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Local Government): The analysis shows that the national rates bill has increased quite dramatically, from $2.3 billion a year to $4.2 billion a year, or by 7 percent compound per annum. Inflation over these years has been 3 percent per annum. The increases range from as high as 13 percent compounded per year for some councils, to the lowest of 4 percent compounded per year for others. None of the councils were able to keep the increase over that decade to the rate of inflation. The fact that these rate rises dramatically increased under the enactment of the new local government legislation in 2002 raises questions about the negative impacts these reforms have had for both households and businesses.

Jami-Lee Ross: Has the Minister seen any reports from 2002 where the Government assured businesses, farmers, and householders that the changes to the purposes and principles of local government would have no impact on rates or costs, and given what has transpired since, what economic impacts have these changes had?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have seen reports. Strong assurances were given by the previous Government, in fact, that there would be big cost savings from those changes in 2002. The fact is that the average rate rise in the decade since has been 6.8 percent, as compared with the decade previous of 3.9 percent per annum. If the rate increase had continued at the previous rate, rates would be costing the New Zealand economy today $1 billion a year less, or a saving of $500 per household. As a consequence of these figures, the Government is reviewing those 2002 changes, because ongoing cost increases of this order are not affordable and will negatively impact on New Zealand’s economic prospects.

Earthquakes, Canterbury and Christchurch—Extension of Red Zone Offer to Retirement Villages

9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by the part of his statement of 27 January, announcing the extension of the red zone offer to retirement villages, that letters of offer would be sent to each resident and CERA would work with village owners as quickly as possible to ensure the residents are assisted; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): It was always the Government’s intention that red zone offers would go to residents. Receivables from the sale of retirement villages to the Crown must be applied to exit payments to residents via a statutory supervisor as a priority over any other person, including the owners, so that the residents’ interests are protected.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why was the wording of the media statement, which said a letter of offer would be sent to each resident, changed to the one now on the Beehive website, which says that an offer to each owner will follow, and was that designed to cover up the humungous blunder, as one person has described this communication of this policy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, it is because the legalities around this mean that the owners of the rest home own the property—have the title to the property. The residents, in the cases we are generally talking about, have a licence to occupy. So by law—by one law—the settlement is with the owners, but, as I said before, receivables from the sale of retirement villages to the Crown must be applied to exit payments to residents as a priority over any other person, including the owners, so that the residents’ interests are protected.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How has he responded to the son-in-law of one of the former Kate Sheppard Gardens residents, who was advised by his colleague Kate Wilkinson that the Government was not about to make Lance Bunting a rich man, and that the Government was going to look after the residents, in light of the statement from his own office to Kate Sheppard Gardens’ statutory supervisor that there is no wider policy decision providing for top-ups above contractual obligations for residents?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My advice is that the rest home that is mentioned by the member in this question has effected exit payments with all of its residents bar a few, who are still waiting to have their situation reviewed, and that it is currently—my advice is—a matter between the residents and the owner. But by and large the particular owner you mention has settled with his residents, unlike another owner, who has the expectation of an $8.712 million settlement from the Crown and $5.2 million worth of obligations to his residents, but is enlisting the help of some MPs to see whether he can wheedle more out of the Crown.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Can the Minister confirm the advice that I received from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority that residents do get the first call on any money that legally goes to retirement village owners—that it is like being a preferred creditor, as they get first call on any money that is passed to the rest home owners—and will he actually apologise to all of those people whose hopes have been raised and dashed again with the announcement that he will not provide for the residents to be looked after in this matter?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I repeat for the third time: any payments made by the Crown for the sale of rest homes or retirement villages must be applied to exit payments to residents via a statutory supervisor as a priority over any other person, including the owner, so that the residents’ interests are protected. That is exactly what the member has asked for, it is what we are doing, and there is nothing to apologise for.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is the press statement from Gerry Brownlee referring—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not table—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Excuse me, there have been changes to the wording from the website—[Interruption] I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I am not putting it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not table press statements in this House. The member has other ways of getting her information out in the public if she wishes to. Tabling documents in this House is to provide members with information, and press statements are not part of that package. There are plenty of other mechanisms for the member to get her points out in the public, if that is what she wants to do. But the procedure for tabling documents is not a procedure for making political points. It is a procedure for providing information to members that they would not otherwise have available to them.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee—I am sorry, the Hon Trevor Mallard. [Interruption] Order! I apologise, indeed.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is not the worst thing that has happened today. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think it is a relatively important point, and I think you outlined very clearly the reasons that press statements are not tabled in this House, and that is because they are otherwise available. The point that my colleague was beginning to make, and was about a sentence off finishing, was that this press statement is no longer available, because it has been taken down and changed on the Minister’s website.

Mr SPEAKER: Presumably the press statement was available to all members.

Hon Trevor Mallard: But it is not now available to members.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I will leave the matter for the House—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the House can decide. I will leave—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would like—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the honourable Leader of the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am prepared to put my original press statement up on TradeMe with a “buy now” price.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I am not going to have any. I guess several members have got away with points of order today that are not points of order, and I blame myself, but I guess there has been some humour around all of them. I will leave the matter for the House to decide. I will let the member describe the documents.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The first is the original press statement, dated 27 January 2012, which referred to a letter of offer going to each resident. The second is a summary of the SMS text messages with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority where I was trying to get details of the red zone retirement village announcement, as the advice I had had from the press was different from the statement I had received from the Minister’s office. The third is a letter to the Hon Gerry Brownlee, dated 6 February 2012, making him aware of the frustration their family feels at having a family member resident at Kate Sheppard Gardens, and the last document is the email from Peter Orpin, statutory supervisor for Kate Sheppard Gardens, explaining that he had spent several hours researching the matter and regretted to inform that the additional funds would not be forthcoming.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Overseas Investment Office—Meeting with Chinese Consul

10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Land Information: Did Overseas Investment Office officials meet with Chinese political consul Cheng Lei late last year; if so, did they discuss Shanghai Pengxin’s bid for the Crafar farms?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information): I am advised that officials from Treasury and the Overseas Investment Office met with Mr Cheng Lei on 8 August 2011, which could hardly be described as late last year. Officials did not discuss the Shanghai Pengxin bid for the Crafar farms. The purpose of the meeting was to provide Mr Lei with an understanding of New Zealand’s overseas investment laws.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he consider that his officials should have alerted him to the fact that a senior Chinese Government official was meeting with the Overseas Investment Office, the very body that is tasked with providing recommendations on bids like the Shanghai Pengxin bid?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: If those Chinese officials had raised any one specific bid with the Overseas Investment Office, I would have expected it to have informed me. But given that the briefing was just on our general overseas investment regime, so that the Chinese delegate could be well versed on it, there is simply no need to be briefing anybody.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the reason why the counsel for the Overseas Investment Office raised the issue of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement and the implications of the Shanghai Pengxin bid for that agreement connected with the meeting with the Chinese consul?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Does the Minister have any examples of other high commission or embassy staff requesting such briefings from the Overseas Investment Office?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I do, and, more important, can I say that under section 31 of the Act, which is headed “What regulator does”, it is actually made clear that the Overseas Investment Office must make itself available on request to explain the regime. I am very happy to say that on 8 June of last year some people from the Australian Senate, from the country where Russel Norman originated, made a request for it to do it, and then some of his countrymen from the Australian bureau of agriculture requested such a briefing on 21 June last year, as well.

NZ On Air—Release of Documentary Name

11. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Broadcasting: What is the name of the documentary which was withheld in the papers released publicly by NZ On Air titled “Records of decisions made at working group meeting”?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting): I understand the documentary in question is still under development with the broadcaster, and decisions are still to be confirmed about whether it will proceed or receive funding from New Zealand On Air. I have not been made aware of the details of this documentary, and it would not be in the public interest for me to provide details, because of the commercial sensitivity around decisions still to be confirmed by the board of New Zealand On Air.

Clare Curran: Who made the decision to withhold the name of the documentary?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: As pursuant to this question, I will just repeat my first answer. If the member is referring to the Official Information Act request tabled the other day, that Official Information Act request was to New Zealand On Air, I believe.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a really simple question: who made the decision to withhold? It had nothing to do with the OIO.

Mr SPEAKER: The OIA. The member still makes a valid point. [Interruption] Order! This is an important issue. The Minister has indicated that there are issues of public interest around this. However, the member asked who made the decision to withhold the name of the particular programme that was deleted from a document. The Minister may not have that information, but it would be helpful if he made some reference to it in his answer.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like you to reflect on the line of questioning that has been going on on this for some days now. Increasingly those questions are starting to require the Minister to have ready knowledge of operational issues. That is simply inappropriate. I think to uphold questions that need answers that would require the Minister to have such operational detail is quite outside the understandings of how the separation between governance and the entities themselves works.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate the concern of the member, but Ministers in relation to entities like New Zealand On Air do have a responsibility to answer questions. Although they are not accountable necessarily for operational matters, they have a responsibility that enables them to be questioned on those matters. I accept that in this case the Minister may not actually have that information. If he does not have that information, there is no reason why he would necessarily be expected to have that information, because it is an operational matter, presumably. He may not have that information, and that would be a perfectly reasonable answer if he did not have that information. If he did have the information, he may consider it to be delving into a matter that is still commercially sensitive. When you have a range of commercial programmes under consideration by New Zealand On Air, there may be commercial sensitivities around releasing any information about those. As to whether that is a matter of public interest, the Minister is the best person to judge that. There are a range of answers that are available to the Minister, but I think the question was in order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to perhaps review that offering to the House at a later point, and, if necessary, come back to us, because I do not think it would be appropriate for members of this House to be able to ask details of police operations, or, for that matter, some military operations, or, perhaps, about the Security Intelligence Service, or any range of other things. It also would mean that many Ministers would need to know quite considerable and extensive details about the operation of State-owned enterprises, for example. So there are sort of bounds under which ministerial responsibility is exercised, but it does not go right down to the daily operation—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member, but I disagree with what he is asserting here. I refer him to Speakers’ ruling 157/4: “There is no convention that Ministers are not answerable for operational matters;”. The Minister may not have information on operational matters, or he or she may consider it not in the public interest to give detailed information on operational matters. But that does not preclude members from asking questions about operational matters, and, as I outlined before—I am trying to be helpful to the House—there are a range of answers available to the Minister. He must, of course, be truthful to the House, but if it is not in the public interest to reveal certain information, operational information, that is the Minister’s judgment, and the House cannot second-guess that. But to preclude members or prevent members from asking questions is not within the Standing Orders at all. So much time has expired, so I invite Clare Curran to repeat her question.

Clare Curran: Who made the decision to withhold the name of the documentary?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: If it is referring to the point in the primary question, that was a document released under the Official Information Act by New Zealand On Air, so I presume the answer would be pursuant to whoever signed out that Official Information Act request to the member or whoever requested it in the first place. I do not know who that person was.

Hon Annette King: He doesn’t know much at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Clare Curran: Given the four documentaries released under that Official Information Act request from New Zealand On Air are listed together, who makes the decision to fund documentaries from New Zealand On Air? Is it the board that makes the decision to fund documentaries; if so, why is it that the name of the withheld documentary cannot be released?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: In respect of my primary answer, the general construct is that the Crown funds New Zealand On Air, the board of New Zealand On Air; New Zealand On Air has longstanding working groups and processes that decide themes and contestability, etc. for national programmes. They call them working groups. It is within that process that the members and those they engage with from the sector decide the content or the general direction of whatever programmes they end up funding.

Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been trying to get the Minister to answer direct questions for a number of days. He gives—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not an appropriate way to start a point of order with: “I have been trying to get the Minister to answer direct questions …”. Forgive me, but I did not observe the last question to be a particularly direct question. But the Minister did answer the question. The Minister pointed out that these working groups are involved in making decisions, and he is not involved in them, and he did not go as far as, perhaps, to identify the final decision-making person, but I think it was an answer to the question. The quality of it can be judged, but then the quality of the question can also be judged by members of the House. The member has further supplementary questions available.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Would it be ethical for Mr McElrea, the chair of the Prime Minister’s electorate committee, who works closely with MediaWorks on these four documentaries, to tell the Prime Minister the topic of the documentary?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have full confidence in the board—the members of the board. They all operate under the Crown Entities Act 2004. I note that I also operate under the Broadcasting Act 1989, which prohibits me or any Minister to give any direction in respect of any programme or content.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it was a pretty direct question: would it be ethical for the board member working with MediaWorks to tell the Prime Minister, whose electorate committee he is the chair of, the name of the documentary?

Mr SPEAKER: The member is really making an allegation—it is either a hypothetical question or an allegation, I am not sure which. But there are no precise answers to hypothetical questions, and let us assume it is a hypothetical question—let us put the best interpretation on it. The Minister has indicated that he has absolute confidence in the board and its members. I presume that confidence includes that it will behave ethically. As it was a hypothetical question, I do not think we can press the Minister too much further on that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point I am trying to work out, Mr Speaker, is whether it is ethical or not, and we cannot tell from that answer whether it is the Minister’s view that passing it on—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member, though, is, I presume, posing a hypothetical question: were a member of the board to do that. The Minister is indicating that he has confidence in the board, and I presume that includes that it will behave ethically. Clearly, the Minister is not prepared to get involved in the detail of what might be, in his view, ethical behaviour, compared with the requirements of the board under the Act. I do not think I can press the Minister further on that.

Clare Curran: How many conversations or representations has he had with the chair of the board on this matter, have they discussed the content of the documentaries, and was the name of the documentary that has been withheld mentioned during those conversations?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I think there were three questions in there. I have regular meetings. I met with the chair initially as an initial meet and greet. I think we have had an update since then. Pursuant to the point of the primary question, I have not had discussions with the chair of New Zealand On Air, but let me just take this moment to thank the chair of the New Zealand On Air board—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was three separate questions. The Minister can answer any one of them. The first one, if I recollect correctly, asked how many conversations he had had with the chair of the board of New Zealand On Air, the second asked whether he had discussed the nature of these documentaries with the chair of New Zealand On Air, and the third asked whether the name of this particular documentary was mentioned in those discussions. The Minister can answer any one of those, but he should be able to answer that question, because the Minister would know whether he has talked about those matters, and the Minister has responsibility for what he talks about with the chair of the board.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have normal conversations with the chair of the board, as normal, on a range of matters about New Zealand On Air. We might have had a general discussion about this particular issue, but there would have been one or two conversations—nothing particular to this particular issue whatsoever.

Events, Major—Legislative Protection

12. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress has he made declaring the Volvo Ocean Race Stopover a major event under the Major Events Management Act 2007?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Very good progress has been made. A paper has been approved by a Cabinet committee, and I expect the Government next week to endorse the declaration of the Volvo Ocean Race stopover next month in Auckland. Major events such as these are a significant contributor to New Zealand’s economy, so there are a number of protections in the Major Events Management Act. For example—and I pick a random example—as the author of the Act said at the time it was passed, “The bill … prohibits the on-sale of tickets at above their face value. As recent events show, those who buy up tickets and then seek to sell them at an unfair profit have deprived many Kiwi … fans of the opportunity to attend big events.”

Hon Tau Henare: Why are these kinds of protections under the Major Events Management Act necessary?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Event organisers need to be confident that their investment and marketing are not undermined. As the author of the Act said at the time, organisers and sponsors make huge financial commitments to make these types of events a reality, and clearly they do not want others to free-ride on their investments and trade off their goodwill. Indeed, there are those who would advocate these protections be extended to regional events, such as—I do not know; speaking hypothetically—Wellington’s Homegrown festival, although presumably not, in this case, the original sponsor of this Act.

Hon Tau Henare: What reports has the Minister received that suggest ongoing behaviour contrary to the intent of that legislation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have received a report as late as this morning highlighting the problem of ongoing ticket scalping for upcoming events, taking place in this case, apparently, from a red-painted ticket sales office in Naenae, which is possibly part of a chain of such offices all across Lower Hutt. Notwithstanding that the alleged perpetrator has been quoted in the paper as saying “It’s not what it looks like.”, I think in this case it is what it looks like, and what it looks like is a clear case of “Do as I say, but not as I do.”

Point of Order—Supplementary Questions, Prefacing Words

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a serious point of order. Standing Order 170/8 refers to the way in which people may begin a supplementary question. I wonder whether you might reflect on that, and come back to us on it. It is not a big matter, but it is something that has come up three times today in supplementary questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Does the honourable Leader of the House mean Speaker’s ruling 170/8?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, Speaker’s ruling. It is not necessary to talk about it now.

Mr SPEAKER: Once I see what the matter is about, I will—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is fine. Thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: Members are aware that I have not been too strict on that issue. I am aware that previous Speakers have ruled that out, but the reason I have not followed that pattern is that I find it helpful if members listen to answers given, and then, in asking a further supplementary question, say “Given that answer” or “Given [something the Minister said]”, bringing focus to their question in that way. That is why I have not ruled out that kind of preface to a question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That would be fine if, on all of the occasions, the word “given” did, in fact, refer to something that was immediately spoken, and not, in fact, to an assertion that was made in the first question. It is just one of those things that sometimes can creep in here, and makes question time a little difficult. I know the efforts you have made to get better answers to questions.

Mr SPEAKER: I am aware of the point the Minister is making. Of course, rather than ruling out questions that do that, I have allowed Ministers to use that alleged statement at the start of the question, and simply refute it. That is, to me, the discipline on members asking questions, because they do not get any answer if they do that sort of thing.

Urgent Debates Declined

Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms

Mr SPEAKER: I have received letters from Dr Russel Norman and from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the requirement that the Minister for Land Information and the Associate Minister of Finance must reconsider their decision to approve Milk New Zealand’s application to buy the Crafar farms as a result of a decision of the High Court on 15 February 2012, and the outcome and effects of the decision on current Government policy.

The urgent debate procedure is a means of holding the Government to account for matters that have actually occurred. It is not a means of debating something that may occur in the future. There is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court, as I pointed out to the House yesterday, so there is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court requiring that the Ministers’ decision be reconsidered. As that reconsideration has not yet happened, there is no particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised today. The application is therefore declined.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not to in any way challenge what you have just said, but yesterday, in your comments about a similar application made for an urgent debate, you said that there were grounds you could envisage for an application being made, but they were not the grounds that were laid out in yesterday’s application. That being the case—I am not certain of what Dr Norman drafted—I know that our application was drafted not on the basis of what the court had said, because no Minister is responsible for what the judge might do, but on the results of that, which left the policy void on a matter that is highly political and of great public interest. That is why our application was phrased that way. That said, you have ruled it out. But are there any grounds at all on which such an application could be successful, given what you said yesterday, which sounded like an invitation to lodge an application today?

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the right honourable gentleman’s points, and it is a fair point of order. The grounds that I envisage would be if the Ministers made a very prompt decision to do something, because that would be a case of recent occurrence. But the case must be something that is the responsibility of a Minister, and as the right honourable member points out, the decision of the judge is not the responsibility of the Minister. The member did put some effort into trying to frame an application to try to bring it to meet the Standing Orders—and I compliment him on that—but it does require a case of recent occurrence involving a Government Minister, and that has not happened yet. That was what I envisaged might happen, and it has not happened yet.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 15 February.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It gives me great pleasure to speak in this Address in Reply debate, because of the excellent record of the National Government over the last 3 years, and because of the extremely well-crafted 120-point economic development plan, which heralds such a bright future for all New Zealanders. But I must say I was somewhat concerned last Tuesday when I heard some somewhat vacuous huffing and puffing from the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Grant Robertson, the member for Wellington Central, when he said after a 10-minute tirade that, in his view, all the National Government could do was sell, cut, and hope. That is why Mr Robertson has only 33 colleagues sitting on those benches over there, and if he continues with the lack of insight he displayed last week, there will be some fewer members left next time around.

What was extraordinary about Mr Robertson’s lack of insight was that he failed to recognise that election 2011 was all about a National Government that was committed and determined to balance the books by 2014, committed and determined to achieve economic growth through a sustainable 120-point plan, and committed and determined to follow prudential financial management, versus a Labour Opposition, which seemed hell-bent, committed, and determined to spend more, borrow more, get money from wherever it could, and tax more at a time when this was clearly against the short-, medium-, and long-term interests of New Zealand.

The other thing that was notable about the Opposition was that it accused both the Prime Minister and members from this side of failing to address the social issues. It is as though the Labour Opposition has this myopic feeling that it possesses the high ground on social justice and other such things. How wrong could it be! We have just seen a landmark initiative from the Hon Paula Bennett in initiating the extremely important Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. It is of extreme importance to all New Zealanders.

Everyone in this House knows that child outcomes have deteriorated in New Zealand relative to OECD statistics over the last 30 years since the 1960s, and everybody in this House knows that probably in the order of 15 to 20 percent of our children will not achieve their full potential or will not realise their dreams unless a huge amount of effort is put into solving what has gone on for decades. It is a particularly difficult situation, and it will not be solved easily. However, the Hon Paula Bennett is holding meetings throughout the country that are extremely well attended, and she is giving ordinary Kiwis the opportunity to turn up and show what they believe is important in solving these fundamentally serious situations for New Zealand.

I would say to all members of this House that they should take note of that. They should read the green paper, and, hopefully, they too can contribute by a submission to the green paper. It is extremely politically neutral in the way it has been written, and it does indeed give a great opportunity—

Su’a William Sio: I want you to be the Minister.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —for a contribution, and I am sure Su’a William Sio over there will be doing exactly that. He attended the meeting in Māngere, and I very much hope he will be a major contributor.

There is indeed a groundswell throughout New Zealand that improving outcomes for children is a major, major issue in New Zealand and does require a far greater priority than successive Governments have put to it over the last few decades. That is why the National Government has demonstrated its willingness to improve child outcomes by forming a high-level ministerial group on poverty, by agreeing to hold a Māori Affairs Committee inquiry into the determinants of well-being for Māori children, by initiating the green paper, and—only yesterday—by initiating a Health Committee inquiry into what practical health and social interventions can be made to prevent child abuse and promote child well-being from conception until 3 years of age, which is the most vital time to prevent problems developing.

As a young house surgeon at Middlemore Hospital, several decades ago, I am afraid to say—I admit that—it was deeply impressed on me the predictability of cycles of disadvantages that were going to occur. In the antenatal clinics I would see these young women and their babies. They were clearly highly at risk. Sadly, often they would be single, they would have tattoos, they would be smokers, they would be addicted to drugs, and they would often be in the lower socio-economic group. Again, sadly, a higher proportion of them would be Māori or Pacific Islanders.

Those children, having been born, would often go to suboptimal housing. They would often go to homes where their ear infections were not treated, where their sores were not treated, where they did not get their immunisations or their Well Child checks. They went to school, they did not learn well, and they would finally leave school without appropriate qualifications. They could not get a job, they turned to crime, and they got caught, because they could not even hear the policeman coming.

It is worthwhile pointing out that a study by a fellow called Bowers in the 1980s of the muster at Mt Eden Prison showed that 90 percent of the muster had some sort of hearing defect and there were 15 to 20 of those prisoners wandering around with chronically suppurating ears. These are the very things that we have got to solve. All the literature—the scientific, the psychological, the educative, the judicial—points to early intervention. That is why it is so important that the Government’s initiatives on vulnerable children must be carried through, and, hopefully, the whole Parliament will get behind it. That is why the Māori Affairs Committee inquiry into improving Māori children’s outcomes is so important, and that is why the Health Committee inquiry into practical, evidence-based outcomes that can be taken from the earliest stage is of extreme importance and gives all members of this House an opportunity to contribute.

Finally, I just wanted to say that clearly the economic influences to resource excellent health, education, and social services are not everything; practical focus on the economy and on economic growth is absolutely vital. It is vital and fundamental that this National Government is determined to sustained economic growth through this very well-crafted economic development plan, through prudential financial management, and through balancing the books by 2014-15. This is particularly important in these very uncertain economic times, and it is particularly important for us to ensure that there are practical resources behind making the outcomes for children in New Zealand better than they are at present.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to congratulate you and your fellow presiding officers on your re-elections to office, and also to all returning members to the House, congratulations on your re-elections, and to all new members, congratulations on your elections. To the new members who have already made their maiden speeches, congratulations—particularly to my four Labour colleagues David Clark, Andrew Little, Dr Megan Woods, and Rino Tirikatene on the superb speeches that they made the other night in the House—and also to all the other members who have made their maiden speeches. To those who have not yet made maiden speeches, best of luck. It is a great experience and one to really treasure.

I feel it is a great privilege to be able to speak in the Address in Reply debate to the Speech from the Throne, and particularly to support the amendment that has been moved by my friend and colleague our new leader, David Shearer. I want to read the amendment in full because it merits repeating: “and the National-led Government will sell New Zealand’s assets against the will of the public; the Government has no ideas to create jobs or a clean and innovative New Zealand; that the Government is widening the gap between the very rich and the rest and therefore this House has no confidence in the National-led government.” That amendment has my wholehearted support, and that of my colleagues, and it has been reinforced by the handling of the Crafar farms affair.

It is useful, I think, to just mention a bit of the background to that matter. The Shanghai Pengxin company made an offer for the Crafar farms. That was accepted by receivers KordaMentha early last year, but it was conditional on Shanghai Pengxin getting Overseas Investment Office approval. It should be remembered that those farms total nearly 8,000 hectares and they comprise 16 central and southern North Island properties. They have been in receivership for more than 2 years.

The receivers gave Shanghai Pengxin until 31 January 2011 to make its offer, understood to be worth between $210 million and $220 million, unconditional. On Friday, 20 January the Overseas Investment Office did provide its recommendation on the sale to the Minister for Land Information, the Hon Maurice Williamson, and Associate Minister of Finance, the Hon Jonathan Coleman. After this, Shanghai Pengxin waited until 27 January 2012 for the Ministers involved to reach a decision to allow the purchase to proceed.

The success of the bid relied heavily on the involvement of Landcorp, a State-owned enterprise, in operating the farms, as Shanghai Pengxin could not prove that it had any relevant experience and skill in farming practices. It is understood that Landcorp, on behalf of the taxpayer, had agreed to pay $18 million a year, effectively to rent the farms back from Shanghai Pengxin. Landcorp, of course, had earlier bid for the farms but was unsuccessful.

A Kiwi consortium last year offered $171.5 million for the farms, to be divided amongst members of the consortium. Receivers said the offer was too cheap, and KordaMentha reminded everybody concerned that it was legally obliged to try for the highest price for the estate. That was the decision that was taken to the Overseas Investment Office; that was the matter that was taken on to the High Court judicial review on 3 February. The decision yesterday by Justice Miller to overturn the Shanghai Pengxin sale means that the office must reconsider its recommendation in light of the interpretation that was set out by the High Court in its decision.

There are three points that I think it is worth having on the record of the House about the decision. In setting aside the decision, the court said, first, that the Ministers involved misdirected themselves on the law, and that the essence of the misdirection was that comparing Shanghai Pengxin’s bid only against the status quo of the farms, rather than against what another New Zealand investor would do with them—which was deemed likely to be similar to Shanghai Pengxin’s development plans—was a fundamental error.

Hon Maurice Williamson: The same process Labour had used during its time in office.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Then Ministers ignored—and we hear from one of the Ministers in error that this was a process that has been used down the ages. Well, actually, he knows that is not right, because it is not the process that the Hon David Parker employed in respect of the Auckland International Airport. He did something that that Minister refused to do—apply his own judgment in the national interest to the decision. Instead of just saying “We will flog it to the highest bidder, because that suits us.”, he asked what was actually in New Zealand’s national interest, and that is the difference between the previous administration under Labour and the current administration. We actually did think about what mattered for New Zealand and we made decisions accordingly.

The second key part of the decision of Justice Miller was that Ministers were held to have ignored clear evidence of the benefits that would accrue should the land remain in New Zealand ownership. Given that economic benefits would also be realised if the farms were sold to a New Zealand buyer, the Shanghai Pengxin bid could not claim to be adding substantial benefit to the country, and that is a basic and fundamental problem with the reasoning process used by the Ministers.

Finally—and, I think, most damningly—the Ministers’ error was not a mere technicality and the economic benefits caused by the overseas investment were materially overstated. It is going to be very hard, despite what we have heard in answers to questions to Ministers, when this decision has to be taken again, for that bid to be upheld—very, very hard, indeed. The High Court’s decision to overturn the sale shows that National simply got it wrong, and in doing so, as I said earlier, just ignored the best interests of New Zealanders.

It is worse than that, because if one looks at the entire process, there are some suspicions that are naturally arising as a result of the way in which the process was handled. It seems pretty clear, actually, stepping back, that the Government always intended to sell this valuable land to Shanghai Pengxin, despite clear evidence that it was not the right decision for New Zealand. John Key has repeatedly claimed that the law did not allow him or his Ministers to overrule a recommendation made by the Overseas Investment Office to approve the Chinese consortium’s application. That is plainly wrong, and that is certainly very different to the sort of reasoning process employed, for example, by David Parker. Justice Miller’s decision shows that John Key’s claim was wrong and that this was simply a way of justifying erroneous decision-making on the part of the two Ministers whom I have referred to. Ministers do have the ability—clear ability—to turn down recommendations by the Overseas Investment Office.

The test is very clear in the Act. They are not entitled to depart from the tests in the Act, but they are entitled and required to apply their own judgment to that test. In fact, the Act goes so far as to say that once they have received the advice from the office, they can consult with whomever they like in reaching their final decision. There is simply no evidence that either of these Ministers applied the independent judgment in the interests of the country that we would expect them to.

We on this side of the House said that the decision to sell to Shanghai Pengxin was wrong. It was not in New Zealand’s national interest. We all want foreign direct investment, but we do not want to sell valuable land to foreign investors only to see profits that could have been reaped by New Zealand farmers and injected into our own economy heading offshore.

John Key has repeatedly warned that there is a risk that New Zealanders could become tenants in our own land. Well, this is now his chance to make sure that that does not happen in this case. We need to be setting a high standard for any further investment. We need an absolute assurance that any investment will add more value and provide more opportunities for New Zealanders, and above all, we need competent Ministers with a plan to build a prosperous, fair, and vibrant society.

Hon Maurice Williamson: So you ran that ruler over the Shania Twain bid?

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Sadly, despite the shouts and shrieks from the Ministers concerned, who now seem very wise after the event, the sad thing about this case is that it shows that we do not have a cadre of Ministers with those skills or that commitment as members of the second Key National Government. That is why I wholeheartedly support the amendment that David Shearer has moved to the motion.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say it is great to be back in Parliament. I want to congratulate you on your elevation, in your case, and your fellow officers on their positions, and on the re-election of the Speaker. I would like to say to the new members across the House, from whatever party, welcome to Parliament. We have had a great range of maiden speeches from a range of members, and I am very much looking forward to some great speeches this afternoon from the new National members. We are bringing in some real quality people, and I think those people have great careers ahead of them. I also want to acknowledge the many National Party members and supporters in the gallery today, who have come from all around the country to hear those maiden speeches.

I cannot let that last speech go without pointing out one or two things. The thing that really struck me is that those guys over there did one thing in Government and are now saying another thing in Opposition. Of course, there is a word for that, but we do not need to go into that. But the facts bear this out. Under the first term of this National Government, 100,000 hectares of land were sold. Under the 9 years of the Labour Government, 666,000 hectares—

Hon Maurice Williamson: How much?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —of land were sold—666,000 hectares. In 1 year alone, 2006, those people in Government sold 383,000 hectares of land. So for Charles Chauvel to get up now and say that he is opposed to land sales to foreigners is nothing more than cheap politics—below-the-belt politics. The reality is, and I can tell you, Mr Shearer does not actually believe this stuff, because he is a person with a wider international perspective on things. He knows that New Zealand has to grow, that we need foreign direct investment. But the problem is he cannot have his voice heard in that caucus, because it is the hard-nosed political people like Trevor Mallard who are pulling the strings.

What was really interesting when you heard Charles Chauvel’s speech there was that he was talking about the tests that were applied in this case. Well, the thing is the tests that were applied were exactly the same ones that were used by David Parker and all the other Labour Ministers who were involved in land consent applications during the 9 years of the Labour Government. Suddenly, they are saying that the way it has been done all along is so wrong and this Government has got it so wrong, but somehow they had it right. I do not think that can possibly add up.

So I think the public are going to see this for what it is, but what these people over there need to know is that when David Shearer goes to Auckland and goes to Chinese New Year and says gong xi fa cai, those people will know that the Labour Party is anti-Chinese. That is the sad fact. That is how it is going to be portrayed in Beijing, that if we ever get a Labour Government here—

Todd McClay: Except when they want their money.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Of course—except when these people want donations. These people want to live in a small, insular New Zealand that does not look outward. They are being increasingly influenced by the Greens and I can tell you their concept of economic sovereignty is the road to economic ruin. So, they are a party—

Hon Maryan Street: Grow up and be a Minister!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —and you can tell by how agitated Maryan Street is that we are really hitting the nail here—that when it is in Government it does something totally different.

There is another example that has been brought to our attention. The Major Events Management Act 2007 is a very important Act, which quite rightfully was designed to stop scalping at major events. When it was brought in, the sponsor of that bill, the Hon Trevor Mallard, was very clear about why that legislation was needed. He said: “Scalping is a rip-off—”

Hon Maryan Street: Find somebody to punch on the nose, Jonathan!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Maryan Street said she wants to come and punch me on the nose, so we are really hitting the point here—“Scalping is a rip-off that could deny many people the opportunity to see an event.” That is what Trevor Mallard said—“Scalping is a rip-off …”. So it came as a great surprise today for people to pick up the front page of the Dominion Post and see the “King of Uber-cool”, New Zealand’s hippest 57-year-old, Trevor Mallard, being accused here of selling tickets for a profit online. Is that not sad? Just like with asset sales, Labour ex-Ministers do one thing in Government, but when it suits them—in this case for personal financial gain—they are very happy to do something else. And I can imagine the shock that these young Wellingtonians got when they were called to Trevor Mallard’s contraband ticket office, the Naenae electorate office for Hutt South, and found the “King of Uber-cool” coming out—no doubt in his tight black T-shirt, getting down with the kids—

Todd McClay: In his leather trousers.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I do not know, but he was flogging off these tickets at an exorbitant price. If that is about creating a more equal society, well, I think the more equal society is, frankly, empty rhetoric on that side.

Quite frankly, it is a complete disgrace, and I feel sorry for Mr Shearer, because he is a good man. He was one of my constituents and I am pretty sure he voted for me. He has now moved to the Mt Albert electorate, but he is a good man and the Labour Party does not deserve David Shearer. He is too good for these people. But he made a choice a long time ago, he set out his stall, and now he is stuck with this bunch of losers over there. I can tell you that those people are a long, long way from Government.

But there is good news too, because today we have had the Budget Policy Statement. Look, the Budget Policy Statement shows that we are on track economically. John Key, the best Prime Minister that this country has ever had, said he would get the economics of this country on the right track. [Interruption] The new New Zealand First member Tracey Martin can go and have a read of this; it is a very good piece of paper—in fact, a number of pieces of paper. We are on track to post a surplus of $370 million by 2014-15—responsible management of the finances that Labour was never able to deliver. It wasted 9 years squandering every single opportunity. We could be so far ahead if it had not raided the cookie jar year after year to buy off votes from every community imaginable.

There is an essential choice that the voters of New Zealand made at the general election. They voted for the mixed-ownership model, because, unlike these guys, the New Zealand public understands we have to get debt down. But we have also got to build infrastructure. We have got $250 billion worth of assets and what we are going to do, in order to buy infrastructure that the country needs, is partially float four of those companies. What I want to know, Maryan Street, if this is such a bad idea, while you guys were in office why did you not buy back the 25 percent of Air New Zealand that—[Interruption] Yep, see, she is playing the violin. Why did they not do it? The fact is they had the opportunity. Their opposition to this is purely political, but if they had their way, they would be borrowing more. We would be getting into more debt. We would be going down the route of Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal.

We are on track, and we are on track because we are making the decisions that are right for New Zealand. So I am very proud to be a member of this National-led Government. The future is excellent for New Zealand if we stick to the economic track that we are on. If these people ever get back in charge, I can tell you the outlook is not going to be good at all. But, fortunately, what I can assure members and the public is that these people are so far away from making an impact, it is negligible—years away. I do not think that the next Labour Prime Minister, frankly, is even in the Parliament. In fact, who is the Leader of the Opposition?

Hon Member: Who is he?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not know. Is it Winston?

Dr Cam Calder: It could be.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, it could be. It could be the leader of the Green Party, because that is a leaderless rabble.

Paul Hutchison talked about the 120-point economic plan. It is about economic growth, it is about looking outwards, and it is about getting investment into New Zealand and growing the economy. That myopic look that says: “Don’t come here if you are a Chinese investor, please.”, that is not going to work. We have got to get the capital into this country, we have got to raise exports, we have got to get the country going. It needs clear-sighted vision, and that is what the mixed-ownership model is bringing—a very clear view on what New Zealand needs.

So those are my remarks. We have laid out our stall: a clear plan, a clear delivery. The public are behind us. It is the way to go.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak in this Address in Reply debate. Can I start by saying that it is going to be a very hard act to follow that wonderful, delightful, entertaining, visionary speech from the Minister Jonathan Coleman—

Hon Maryan Street: You’ll be all right, Todd. Don’t worry. You’ll be all right.

TODD McCLAY: —but I will do my very best, Maryan Street; you are absolutely right. But that was an excellent speech. The Minister touched on all of the points that were important to New Zealanders last year before the election—all of the reasons why New Zealanders turned out in their droves to support this party and the Prime Minister and to say “We want more of that for another 3 years.”

Can I say that it is great to be back, and it is enjoyable to be back in this House to join with my colleagues and, particularly, to join with other members of Parliament here from all parties as we look towards the next 3 years to work hard, collectively and separately, to make New Zealand a better place. I particularly want to recognise the role of the Speaker, and the deputies and assistants, to congratulate the Speaker on his election and reappointment, and to say that we look forward to more time with him in the Chair.

Can I recognise the new members of Parliament who have come here, and particularly members from the Green Party. I thoroughly enjoyed their maiden speeches yesterday, although not as much, perhaps, as my colleague on my right, Cam Calder. But can I say, it is good to see new members coming here and talking a bit about why they have come to this House and what brought them here, and so on.

I want to recognise members of New Zealand First, the new members to the House, and their contributions in their maiden speeches. They too were enjoyable. I want to welcome back the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has come back to the House, and also, of course, to welcome back the Hon John Banks. They are brothers at times—perhaps in the past. It is good to see those members back. We may not agree on everything, but it is good to have members of the House who will come here and debate issues honestly. May I wish them well in that.

Can I recognise four members of Labour who are new to this Parliament and who gave their maiden speeches yesterday; today we have seven new members of National who will make their speeches—7-4. That would have been a good score some years ago in a Rugby World Cup when the All Blacks were playing Australia or somebody else. I want to reflect on that for a moment. Here we are, a National Government in a second term, which in the last 3 years went through, with New Zealand, some very difficult times: the global financial crisis, the steepest recession New Zealand has faced in 60 years, great heartache to New Zealand and New Zealanders with the devastation of the earthquakes, and the very sad loss of life in Christchurch. But here we are with seven new members of the National caucus making their speeches today, and well done to them.

That is a bit about rejuvenation. Three years ago we saw rejuvenation for New Zealand when New Zealanders in droves—the largest vote ever cast for any party under MMP—decided they wanted a change of direction and they wanted a brighter future. And here we are with seven new National MPs to make their speeches today—rejuvenation after only one term.

On the Opposition side, in Labour, there are four new members. Actually, there were some very good speeches there but only four of them. What happened to Labour over that last 3 years when it decided that it was about listening to New Zealanders, rejuvenating, and bringing in new blood? Well, I feel very sorry for some of their hard-working MPs who 3 years ago made their maiden speeches with some of my colleagues—some very intelligent MPs who are no longer in this place. So there is some work to do.

Can I say that in mentioning Mr Peters, we should actually have a vote in this House about who the real Leader of the Opposition is, because I think, based upon what has happened so far over the last 2 weeks, it is not clear that the party in Opposition with the largest number of votes would necessarily win there. If we think about—

Hon Maurice Williamson: I’ll go with the Australian. I’m going to vote for the Australian.

TODD McCLAY: Mr Williamson would vote for the Australian—very good. Can I say here that over the last 2 weeks, when we think about question time and about the Opposition holding the Government to account we see that the largest party in this House, Labour, has been woefully neglectful and absent. And can I say that although we will not always agree with everything that happens from all parties in this House, if nothing more it has been interesting and entertaining to listen to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I say to his colleagues that they too have a very important role to play. You see, the thing about Opposition is that it is not always about opposing everything; it is about finding ways that we can work together, putting the politics aside from time to time, and finding ways that we can work together.

New Zealand First members have a list MP based in the Bay of Plenty—Brendan Horan—and I had a chance to talk to him for the first time last week and welcome him to Parliament on behalf of parts of the Bay of Plenty and with my National colleagues in all the other seats in the Bay of Plenty, which not only did we hold before but we were able to continue to hold in this election. I talked to him about putting aside some of our individual political issues and finding ways to work together more closely so that we can do better for New Zealanders. And I look forward to being able to do that with New Zealand First members.

Finally, I want to get on to a bit of the detail of some of the things the Government has set out to do, but before I do I want to focus on one thing, and that is the leader of the Labour Party, David Shearer. He came into Parliament at the same time as some of us, a short 3 years ago—3 years and a few months. I really got to know him only when we played in the Parliamentary cricket game in Cambridge a couple of years ago. It strikes me that that is about the same amount of knowledge that most New Zealanders have on him. But do I wish him well? Absolutely. It seems that he was demoted or dropped from the Big Gay Out last week. I did not see a lot of coverage there. Breakfast TV—in the headlines today, Breakfast has decided that as leader of Labour and Leader of the Opposition, he is not that interesting, so they might not be able to give him a slot every week on Breakfast. A prediction for you—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Oh.

TODD McCLAY: It is a bit of a shame because I saw him on TV this morning and when he was speaking to New Zealanders I felt my majority in the Rotorua electorate going up. So I would like to keep him there. A plea to Breakfast and TVNZ: give him some more time for the good of our majorities.

Here is a prediction for the next 3 years. In the next 3 years, when we have shown New Zealanders that we have continued to work hard for them and deliver on the commitments and promises we made to them during this last election campaign when they re-elected us to govern this country, I guarantee that when we get there and it is time to consider John Key as Prime Minister, his commitments to New Zealand and New Zealanders, and the very hard work that he and this Government has done on their behalves, it will not be David Shearer on the other side that he is up against. There is my prediction: David Shearer is gone from the Big Gay Out and dumped from Breakfast, and I do not think it will be very long before he is finding another seat on that side a row or two back. I wish him the very best because he was quite a good cricket player a year or so ago in Cambridge, but that is about all I remember of him. It is about all that the people of Cambridge probably know about him as well. Where is Winston Peters when we need a real Leader of the Opposition?

What I want to say is that these 3 years are about economic development for New Zealand, something that was woefully lacking over the 9 years of the last Labour Government. We started under very difficult circumstances in the last 3 years, delivered on every promise and every commitment we made as a party to New Zealanders, and now we must focus. In roading we must do more work. A great start—$12 billion invested over 10 years. In the Bay of Plenty, a brand new road that will go from the Te Puke area—the Te Puke bypass, I call it—between Rotorua and Tauranga to the port will cut out about 24 or 25 minutes from a return journey. That is great if you want to go and visit the beautiful part of the Bay of Plenty and the coastline or Tauranga and so on, but it is important for our economy in that area of New Zealand, where we produce a lot of trees and a lot of goods that go to the port. That road will cut down the time it takes for us to get our goods to the port. We therefore will be more productive. When we are more productive, we can be more competitive, and that will be more money back into the Bay of Plenty. Roads of national significance are also an important part of that.

Broadband and communications—wonderful. Last year, before the election, they started digging trenches in Rotorua and in 33 other towns and cities around New Zealand for ultra-fast broadband. New Zealanders cannot wait for this to happen and be delivered, because for far too long we were left with inadequate ways to communicate with the world and with each other. Rural broadband as well—$300 million the Government will be investing into this. I was told by some of my constituents in a rural area, where their cellphones have never worked under the 9 years of the previous Labour Government, that a new tower is going up, their cellphones will work, and they will get internet coverage faster than actually posting a letter. That was what it was like before, under the Labour Government, in rural areas: it was quicker to post a letter and get a response, sometimes. Rural broadband is very important for us to reform our economy and give us some of the advantages that we need so that we can grow.

Taking away red tape and bureaucracy—the Resource Management Act. We completed some significant reform there previously, but there is a lot more to do to free up New Zealanders to get on with their lives and business, at the same time continuing to protect our wonderful environment. Time is almost up. Can I say to those who have come—

Darien Fenton: Thank goodness.

TODD McCLAY: I will take a little bit more if you want me to. Can I say to those who have come to listen to maiden speeches that you are very welcome here; this is your House. It is great to see some friends come and support our new MPs. As with all colleagues on this side of the House, I look forward to the next 3 years of a John Key - led National Government delivering for New Zealanders and working hard for New Zealanders. It is going to be an exciting 3 years as we work towards a brighter future. Kia ora. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Can I begin this Address in Reply speech today in congratulating Todd McClay not just on that speech but actually on the stunning result that was achieved in Rotorua, a seat that was previously held by Labour. A big increase in his majority, over 7,400, and actually typical of results right through provincial New Zealand, where that middle group of New Zealanders strongly back the programme that this Government has set down under the leadership of John Key. Can I join other members and congratulate the new members of this House. I am particularly proud to be here as a National member and to see that new generation coming through with National and a whole range of very, very talented people coming into this Parliament to make a contribution. The part that makes me particularly proud as part of this National Government is the extent to which, on this side of the House, there is an understanding of the challenges that face our country. I have to say that I do worry that those on the opposite side of the House have no idea of the challenges, economically, that our country faces, the problems that we have incurred over the last decade, and the importance for the future of our country that we get our economy growing more strongly.

The Government in the Address in Reply debate has set out four really important priorities in this term of Parliament about responsibly managing a Government’s finances—about, as we saw today with the Budget Policy Statement, getting New Zealand books back into the black sooner and faster. When I look around the world, and I see how many countries in the world are going to have their books in the black by 2014-15, there are very few, and I am proud to be part of this Government that is achieving that. What surprises me is that in every question from Opposition members, in every speech, I hear lots of promises about how they will spend more money, but very little about how they will actually grow the economy, particularly the productive sector. That is the only way in which we can secure the incomes, the jobs, and the prosperity for the future.

There has also been a huge focus across the ministerial team around building a more competitive and productive economy, and about building better public services, and I want to talk about that in some detail with respect to my own portfolios. And, of course, there is the huge challenge for this country and for this Parliament and Government of rebuilding Christchurch, for which there is such a strong commitment and for which I pay tribute to the work of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee, who I think every person in this House acknowledges has got one of the toughest jobs over the next 3 years.

A key part of the Government’s programme is about improving public services and improving New Zealand’s productivity. I want to talk for a moment about the challenges in the local government sector. You see, one of the big concerns we have is that the productive part of our economy has actually been in recession going all the way back to 2002. If we look at our core exporting industries, we see that the extra costs and impositions that were placed on them during the term of the previous Labour Government have seen those sectors stagnate, and the big areas of growth have been both central and local government. I note, for instance, that over the last decade the single biggest increase in costs for households and businesses has been the increase in rates. For the last 10 years that increase has been at 6.85 percent per annum. That is more than double the rate of inflation, and I want to reflect on the changes that were made in all the local government legislation in 2002.

Sue Moroney: What are you going to do about it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I invite the member who is interjecting to go back and read the Hansard of what the Labour Government said at the time. What the Labour Government said at the time was that those measures were actually going to generate cost savings. They have done the opposite. Let me put it this way. If rate increases over the last decade had been at the same level they had been for the previous decade, prior to those changes Labour made, the New Zealand annual rates bill would be a billion dollars—a billion dollars—a year less. What is more, if we talk in terms of households that are under pressure in terms of their costs and their standard of living, those changes have brought about $500 a year in increased rates for the average household, over and above what they would be if those rate increases had been what they were through the previous decade.

I want to challenge the member on a further concern, and that is in terms of the level of debt within the local government sector. I have to say that debt is the issue of our time, whether it be household debt, whether it be country debt, or whether it be debt within local government. This Government has been successful—we have seen over the last 2 years household debt come down after it burgeoned in the term of the previous Labour Government, and what we have seen in terms of the farm sector is debt plateau over the last 3 years. But although the Government has been successful my worry is that over the same period we have seen local government debt not just go up but go up by ever-increasing amounts. Since the Local Government Act changes that were made by members opposite, we have seen local government debt quadruple from $2 billion to $8 billion and continuing to rise. So I say—and members on this side of the House say—that ongoing growth in that debt is not right, and that it will compromise the capacity for New Zealand to move forward and to be able to grow competitively.

The first thing we need to do, in response to the member’s question, is go back and have a fresh look at those changes that Labour made to broaden the role of local government. I say to the member opposite that those changes that were made in 2002, which imposed very large compliance costs on our councils and expanded the role of local government far more widely, have come with a very expensive cost for New Zealand households and New Zealand businesses, and that is something this Government is looking to reform.

I also want to draw attention to what has occurred around wage costs. If we look at the latest labour cost index, this is what it shows. [Interruption] If members would listen they might learn something. Over the course of the last Labour Government labour costs in the State sector and in the local government sector grew significantly faster than they did in the private sector. What this Government has been successful in doing is bringing back those increasing labour costs within those core Government agencies.

But what worries me is this. Over the last 3 years the labour costs in the local government sector have been increasing at more than double the rate of those in the central government sector. It is our view that the same fiscal discipline that this Government has brought to central government’s books needs to be translated into the local government sector so that we can get those efficiency gains. We actually need both central and local government containing their costs. We need central and local government supporting those core productive industries that actually create the wealth for this country, the jobs, and the future prospects we wish for in this country of ours.

The John Key - led Government over the last 3 years has shown that it is up to the challenges that this country faces in very difficult times. What the Government has set out in the Address in Reply debate is the changes we intend to make in a number of sectors to improve the competitiveness of this country. We as a close-knit team are united in our wish to raise New Zealand’s living standards and to provide the sort of policies that will mean that this country is able to prosper and go forward. I am looking forward this year to some of those local government changes that can assist in that bigger picture of making sure this country can be the best little country on earth.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): On the first occasion that I have spoken in Parliament during this parliamentary term, can I take the opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, on your role, and all the team from the Speaker’s office. I look forward to a rewarding year of debate under your direction. Can I also take the opportunity to congratulate all returning members who have been elected to the House again for this parliamentary term; I look forward to engaging with all returning members in a high level of debate, because we have many important issues in front of us. I want to particularly congratulate the new members of Parliament. We have had many fine maiden speeches already, and I look forward to the balance resuming this afternoon.

I do want to say that the last three speakers in this debate have been pretty interesting. I think they have actually personified that arrogance of the second term of the National-led Government. We have had Jonathan Coleman, Todd McClay, and Nick Smith—the arrogance of this new National Government personified. In fact, Dr Smith spent much of his speech pouring scorn on the local bodies up and down this country, and not telling us what he was prepared to do about the problem he was identifying. Is that not typical of the arrogance of National members? They identify the problems, say it is all Labour’s fault, and do not have one plan or one specific idea about what to do with the problem. Dr Smith spent almost all of his 10 minutes enlarging on that problem. It does make me wonder what is waiting in the wings there, and I get the very clear impression that wage cuts for people working for local bodies is very much on the agenda of the National Government. Looking at the body language of the members opposite I would say that I can now definitely confirm that wage cuts for that sector are very much on the agenda. So New Zealand families will not be relishing the prospect of even less money going into the pockets of families in their communities, and, therefore, the winding down of services even further in their communities. That is what we have got ahead of us.

But having said that, I start this parliamentary term being remarkably optimistic, actually. Call me Pollyanna if you like, but I am optimistic about this year. Things have to get better.

Hon Kate Wilkinson: They can’t get worse for Labour.

SUE MORONEY: They cannot get worse; things must get better for New Zealand this year, in 2012. This is the year that the Government gets to come good on its promise to build and deliver that brighter future it has promised New Zealand. The year 2012 is New Zealand’s year, because this is the year that the Government must get it right. This has been dragging on for too long. It is dragging on for so long that unemployment has continued to go through the roof in this country. It has dragged on for so long that costs continue to escalate. It has been dragging on for so long that there is no plan coming from the Government to actually rectify those issues that families and ordinary working people face every day of their lives. Because, yes, they have lost their jobs, and, yes, where they have been lucky enough not to lose their jobs, they have lost hours and therefore income. But have their costs decreased? No way. In fact, costs have increased, thanks to that Government and its decision, without consulting the New Zealand public, to increase GST on everything that those families have to purchase; their costs have continued to increase much more dramatically than their incomes have. In fact, for those families—those thousands of families—who now find themselves in the dole queue, and for those other thousands of families who find that their hours at work have been cut over the last 3 years and therefore their incomes have reduced, they have faced a double whammy. They have faced the double whammy of losing income and having costs increase. The members opposite might sit there and think that is not their fault. They may well think that it is some external thing, like the global recession, but they all voted—

Mike Sabin: Nine years of Labour.

SUE MORONEY: Oh, well, there you go. According to the new member it is Labour’s fault. Well, you know, they can blame whatever they like—Labour, the global recession—but they are running out of excuses. This is the year that the Government must get it right, because for too long New Zealanders have been suffering from a lack of a plan from our Government. So this is the year that I am optimistic it must come out with a plan, and it must tell us what the plan is. The plan cannot be asset sales, because it is really clear—and the vast majority of New Zealanders already know this—that asset sales are not the way out. It is not the way out, but it is always the answer from National, because it is exactly the same solution it came up with in the 1990s, and before that. It never fails to surprise me, and I guess I should get over this, how often it is—and it does not matter what the circumstances are—that National always comes up with the same solution. The solution is this: cut taxes, cut public services, and then sell your assets. It did that in the 1990s and it is doing it again now. It is the only formula National members know. They roll it out in every single circumstance, and Maurice Williamson knows it. He was involved in it as a Minister last time, and he is going: “Wow, is this ever déjà vu!”. This was happening the last time Maurice Williamson was in Cabinet, and here we go again. So Maurice Williamson knows all about this.

It has not been a good start, though. As optimistic as I would like to be, the Government has not made a good start. Just look at the shambles of what has been happening this year. Already just this week the Government’s asset sales agenda is looking a bit shaky. I think $10 billion was the highest estimate it gave that it was going to reap from those sales. Not only do New Zealanders not want their assets to be sold—and they do not want to buy them, because they already own them—but now they are realising that the whole financial case on which it has been based is actually quite shaky, and we have seen that again this week.

We have also have seen this week that John Key has come a bit of a cropper on his election advert hour with Radio Live—a whole hour of election adverts that he claimed was not an election advert, but which turned out to be exactly that. But that is not all: let us talk about broadcasting scandals this week, because the other scandal is that his electorate chairman appears to have been involved with politically interfering in the use of taxpayer money—

Hon Maryan Street: In donkey deep.

SUE MORONEY: They are in donkey deep. Broadcasting has been a pretty big issue already this week, so the Government has not got off to a good start.

And then there is the shambles over the Crafar farms decision. There is a shambles over that. The High Court—the judiciary, for goodness’ sake—has come to save the New Zealand public from its own Government. The judiciary has had to step in and do what that Government should be doing on behalf of New Zealanders. It is the judiciary that has had to say that the Government has not made the right decision and the best decision in the economic interests of New Zealanders. The judiciary has had to instruct that Government to go back and think about New Zealanders first. That is what has happened this week. That is exactly what has happened this week, and I know that what National is trying to say is that Labour did it, too. Actually, first, that is not good enough, and, second, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Labour on many occasions overturned the advice that we got from the Overseas Investment Office. We did not just go: “Oh, well, if you guys say that’s it, then that’s good enough for us. With hands behind our back, let’s sit on our hands and do nothing about it.” We were prepared to put New Zealanders’ interests first. The Auckland International Airport—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Oh, Auckland International Airport.

SUE MORONEY: I tell Mr Williamson that that would probably be the most high-profile of those decisions, but there were several others. So the pretence from that side, from the Government, saying that it is just doing what Labour did is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is absolutely wrong, and it is not going to get away with it because New Zealanders know that this smells. They know the smell of their interests being put last when they see it. Can you smell it when you see it? It may not be the right analogy, but New Zealanders get this. They know—they absolutely know—that this Government has not put their interests first. The judiciary knows that this Government has not put New Zealanders’ interests first. How embarrassing it is for that Government to be instructed to go back and do what it was elected to do: to put New Zealanders’ interests first. So I look forward to the overturning of that decision, because Labour got this right, right from the start.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I thank you for the opportunity to speak in the Address in Reply debate this afternoon. I begin by congratulating you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, on your role as a Speaker of the House, and also take this opportunity to congratulate other presiding officers on their roles. I also congratulate my colleagues in Parliament on being re-elected, and welcome all new members in this House. As a not-so-old member of Parliament, I understand how honoured we are as members of Parliament, and I extend my best wishes to all of you. I would also like to acknowledge and thank all the guests present in the gallery who have come to support the National Party MPs in their maiden speeches.

I begin by commending the National-led Government’s commitment of $1 billion for the Future Investment Fund towards building new schools and modernising our existing schools to the 21st century education delivery level. I also commend my Government for choosing the prudent path of not borrowing to fund the building of the new schools and renovation of existing ones. Furthermore, this Government is committed towards further increasing and improving the transport in this country, and that is commendable as well. We are also investing $12.2 million in State highways over the next 10 years, and we must also not forget that very important project of rebuilding our second-largest city of Christchurch. It is not only New Zealand’s second-largest city, it also accounts for 20 percent of our economy. In order to rebuild Christchurch the Government has committed $5.5 billion. In doing so the Government wants to ensure the economic activities of New Zealand, particularly in Christchurch, stay active.

The Prime Minister has outlined our macro strategy of Government management, which involves strong economic growth, along with strong support for our competitive export economy. This, we believe, will lead to our achieving a surplus by 2014-15. To attain our goal the Government wants to move people and capital into the tradable sector. The current economic climate makes it critical that the Government focuses its resources on the areas where they are most needed and will make most impact. The Government promises to do so without investing any new money into public services. This does not mean that the quality of these services will suffer. Rather, by using existing capital and resources the Government wants to ensure that the investment is made in new technologies so that these services are brought up to the mark, so that customers can experience the level of services that other OECD countries provide to their citizens. The Government believes this leads to far better public sector provisions.

The Government places importance on protecting and supporting vulnerable people in our communities. This Government will support them by providing them with the opportunity to get a good education, so that they can empower themselves to lead a better quality of life. To achieve this, this Government is working on long-term and sustainable policies.

All the above points are part of the four major priorities that this Government has laid over its second term. We need to consider all these priorities in the light of the largest economic challenge faced at home and globally since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Fortunately, the New Zealand position, in comparison with other OECD counterparts, has been resilient. The credit for this resilience can be attributed to the common-sense, prudent, and solid economic policies of this John Key - led Government. It is on the basis of our common-sense, prudent, and solid economic policies that our Government is on its way to achieve a Budget surplus by 2014. In my opinion, this is a target that is not easy to achieve. However, I sincerely believe this Government has got the will to achieve it. The Government led by John Key promises to manage the finances of this country wisely to ensure that public services operate at optimum levels within their budgets, that we remain a productive and competitive economy, and that we remove the burden placed on individuals and entrepreneurs by excessive regulation and taxation.

Excessive taxation results in more money being sent to Wellington, rather than being invested locally where it would lead to the growth of the local economy and job creation for both young and old. Manukau East is where my out-of-Parliament office is located, and it is home to many ethnicities, who love the opportunity to make progress, and provide better lives for themselves and their loved ones. They want to establish small enterprises and to contribute to the local economy. Many of these constituents have told me that they are worried about the introduction of capital gains tax and higher taxes for businesses as proposed by Labour. They are going to lose their savings and the fruits of their hard work via taxation. However, by providing the National Party with the mandate to govern this country, they can be assured that their savings and hard work will remain theirs to keep. This I believe will encourage minorities to start their small and medium sized entrepreneurial ventures, that, one day, may grow to become large-scale and employ a lot of New Zealanders from all walks of life.

Lastly, I once again mention the rebuilding of Christchurch, a city that in the past 13 months also has experienced unfortunate and uncalled-for events. Rebuilding Christchurch is our No. 1 priority.

This Government has displayed the attitude of being proactive and hard-working, and is resilient in its ability to take tough and unpopular decisions. This Government has a long-term vision, and based on that long-term vision it has made wise choices, such as investing in infrastructure, schools, medical care, and broadband services. We are also ensuring that we do not do this by borrowing money, but by using our current resources. The best thing about using our current resources to fund our future dreams is not only do we not borrow money for our long-term vision but also we get to see resources flourish and remain ours in the long term.

Some may accuse the Government of being too focused on economic growth, and not displaying enough care for the environment. Let me assure you that this Government is committed to the environment as much as it is committed to economic growth.

Before I finish, there is one important fact I want to share from the perspective of migrants and ethnic groups in New Zealand. I know for a fact that most of us value education. This is the reason that many of us have migrated to countries like New Zealand in search of high-quality education for all of us, and for the generations to come. The steps initiated by the National Government under the very able leadership of the Rt Hon John Key and the Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata, will go a long way to encourage more and more parents and children to seek quality New Zealand education. I also know for a fact that most ethnic minorities—children and parents—have a deep interest in their education. This is reflected in the grades they achieve at school and university level. They also understand that to ensure that they settle nicely in their adopted homeland they must act proactively and make an effort towards achieving higher education, which will empower them economically, and open doors socially for their success. Reforms in the area of education will also attract quality international students to our schools and universities. This is likely to provide other schools and universities with revenue that can be deployed towards better research that fuels innovation and economic growth.

I am confident that my National Party colleagues will add much more to the above list of this Government’s achievements in the past 3 years, while also listing our plans and strategies for the 3 years to come.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, very much for the opportunity to rise and speak in the Address in Reply debate. It is an enormous privilege to stand in this House, and it is one that I never take for granted. I am honoured to be back for a second term. As I look into the gallery above me here, I see the many, many men and women—part of that vast army of National Party supporters—who made it possible for this John Key - led National Government to have a second term in power. I thank you.

It is a huge pleasure to greet the new members of Parliament in the National team. They have added breadth, experience, character, and staunchness to an already staunch, broad, and characterful line-up. I look forward to working with them in the term ahead. There have been some excellent speeches from across the House.

Chris Hipkins: This isn’t one of them.

Dr CAM CALDER: Wait, there is more. Thank you, “Chippy”. It is always a pleasure—always a pleasure. There have been some excellent speeches across the House from members of all parties. I am looking forward to working across the House, collegially, with members of all parties, in select committees to make this country a better place. What people may not know is that for 75 percent of legislation there is broad, bipartisan support. What you see in question time is not always what you get. There is a lot of cooperation, and it has to be like that.

There is an ancient Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.” Let us face it, these are interesting times. I am thinking particularly of the global financial crisis that we are still in. Despite what the then Leader of the Opposition said in the House almost 12 months ago—that it was over—it is not. We know there are huge problems facing us.

Sure, the news from the United States of America is improving slightly, and the housing, home loan, and unemployment indices are all reasonably positive. But that is still a work in progress. When we look at Europe what do we see but the European Central Bank in December underwriting €20 billion per week to sovereign bond purchases on the secondary markets to support the struggling eurozone Governments. The eurozone Governments are lurching towards default because of the huge debt. They have got an almost unlimited amount of the low-interest, long-term liquidity loans to European banks, and, as I say, almost unlimited volumes, because these are the major purchasers of the Government debt. So they have got about €430 billion for them, and let that out on the first day, and there is more to come.

Then we think about Greece. It is now €230 billion to bail out Greece, but the council of Ministers, or the gathering of Ministers, in Brussels have yet to sign that off, because, despite the gritted teeth acceptance of the bailout plan by the MPs, they have not been able to get the coalition leaders to agree. So there has never been a more pressing need for the fiscal responsibility and prudence in New Zealand of a John Key - led Government than we have now, because, as I have said, we live in uncertain times.

We live in uncertain times and, as a result, it is pleasing to see and appropriate to see, and it is absolutely meet and right to see, that fiscal prudence will be an ongoing plank in the 3-year term that lies ahead of us. Prudent financial management, getting more from our public services, and rebuilding Christchurch are three of the main planks, and, of course, improving our trade, underpinning much of what we wish to achieve. The fourth pillar is developing an economy that is more competitive, that is more productive, and that can sell our goods into a wider market, and this is what we have achieved.

It has to be said that there was some very good work by the previous Minister the Hon Phil Goff in negotiating an agreement with China, which has been carried on globally by the Hon Tim Groser, who is doing an outstanding job in developing, broadening, and deepening our links in global trade.

Our goal, and we have made no secret of it, is to lift our export sector from 30 percent to 40 percent of gross domestic product. We are aware that under the previous Government the tradable sector languished from 2004 right through until 2008. Indeed, we entered recession well before the rest of the world, and part of that was that we were not competitive. The decline in competitiveness has started to turn round over the last 3 years, and we are determined to continue this improvement. I am getting a word from the whip that we have some maiden speeches, and you did not come here to listen to me. Thank you.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): E te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi o ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. To the leaders, to the many voices, to all the diverse people and communities of the four winds, I honour and respect and greet you all. I acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, my parliamentary colleagues, and Sir Don McKinnon. I am indeed honoured to be one of the 26 new members of this 50th Parliament, which, more than any other before it, best represents us: the rich, cultural, and ethnic diversity that is modern New Zealand. Greetings to all my friends up there in the public gallery who made the effort to come along here today. Thank you very much for all your ongoing support. Thank you too to the National Party, to the president, to the board members, to Peter Kiely, and to those assembled—the loyal stalwarts. Many from the North Shore have made the journey here today; many others are watching it on the television or the podcast—there are so many ways to get involved in this auspicious occasion. I acknowledge you all with gratitude. Special thanks go to my North Shore team. I stand here today because of your accumulated wise advice, your enthusiasm, and your tenacity. A year ago, many of you did not even know me, and I am humbled by the loyalty, the trust, and the faith that you all had in me to deliver for the electorate your treasure, your taonga.

Heartfelt thanks to my partner, Grant. We met during an Outward Bound course, which turned out to be an excellent training ground for the campaign trail. Grant has been my mainstay and my No. 1 supporter, and I most certainly would not be here without him. All my love as a mother goes out to my son, Joe. He has taught me more about life in the past 14 years than anyone else ever has. I am incredibly proud of him and very thankful that he is here with us today. My boy, Joseph Vincent, was named after his two grandfathers. On my side we hailed from Counties Cork and Kerry, and my son’s father, Paddy Marron, was born in County Monaghan. Paddy, who is up there in the gallery next to our son, Joe, arrived here in New Zealand from the Emerald Isle on the good ship Southern Cross. It was the very day of his third birthday, and he was clamouring for his presents, as they do. His father told him that he was giving him a very special gift: a new start, and a new life, in a new country. My people were farmers, and this was their land of opportunity too. They were practical people who worked the land and, much like myself, were fond of reinvention and recycling.

Actually, as the crow flies I have not come very far at all—about half a kilometre, really, from where I was born in Tinakori Road. These parliamentary buildings—the precinct, as they are known—were always part of the backdrop of my life. It was my favourite shortcut into town through the leafy grounds, past the statues of the great and the good. I went to Sacred Heart School, the convent primary school across the road from here in Guilford Terrace. My family went to mass at the Basilica in Hill Street, which is the church where my parents were married, where I was baptised, and where we held both of their funerals.

My mother, Agnes, was the first single woman the Bank of New South Wales had ever given a business loan to. She opened her florist shop round the corner from here, in Molesworth Street, in 1939, the age of the corsage, the funeral wreath, and the American soldiers—all very good for building what became a highly successful business. Raised on a farm in the Depression years, Mum was a hard worker, and to save enough money for her first home she also ran a boarding house, and as part of her wartime duty she worked nights at the glove and munitions factory. On weekends she was the mainstay of the dig for victory vegetable garden team here in Thorndon. To borrow the Sam Hunt line, I am the fruit of old loins. Mum had me, her only child, when she was 43. Never one to peak too early, she later learnt to play golf—hitting a hole in one at the age of 72. Agnes was a remarkable and a determined woman, who taught me many things, including the value of a strong work ethic, the importance of trying your best if you want to achieve the things that matter, and never ever giving in on what you really believe in. In her later years she taught me how to live in the moment, which was perhaps one of her greatest gifts to me.

David, the old man, had a sharp mind and a quick temper. He was very fond of a drink and an argument, and I learnt early on to justify my point of view, or keep quiet. These are skills I feel will come in very handy in this Chamber. Dad had falsified his age to enlist to fight in World War II. He was keen to serve his country, as his father, Edward, had before him at Gallipoli. I was raised to believe that in peacetime the highest form of public service is to be a member of Parliament. I know that they would all be very proud of me standing here today in this Chamber as the first politician in my family.

My forebears picked this extraordinary country as the place they wanted to call home, and now my family and I have chosen to cross the harbour and be part of the North Shore community. It is a great privilege for me to be here today representing them, following in the footsteps of such honourable men as George Gair and Wayne Mapp. And I am breaking in some new ground of my own, becoming National’s first-ever woman MP north of the harbour bridge. I was born in the year it opened, in 1959, and I can assure you that we will not be waiting around patiently for another 52 years for a second harbour crossing. The North Shore is defined by water—the glorious Waitematā Harbour, the Hauraki Gulf, and the freshwater playground of Lake Pupuke. Shore people work and play on the margins between the ocean and the land. We enthusiastically sail, windsurf, paddleboard, swim, and fish. There is a sense of satisfaction, really, in being different from either our big city or our rural neighbours. There is a tangible sense that we are indeed fortunate to be still enjoying that “end of the golden weather” lifestyle that was made famous by local playwright Bruce Mason. Laid back—yes, indeed—but never lacking when it comes to energy and vision.

The North Shore is an unashamedly aspirational community. We have a rich cultural history and the mountains in Devonport were amongst the earliest areas of Auckland to be settled. It was occupied by Māori from the 1300s, European settlers, with their colonial architecture, began arriving from the mid-1800s, and there was a permanent naval presence by 1841—still strong to this day. Gradually farming was overtaken by shipbuilding, and now tourism and appreciative visitors are a substantial and increasing source of income, as they catch the ferry across from the city to sample the pleasures and diverse heritage of Devonport. Takapuna translates as “the rock with a spring”. Against the background of some of the finest beaches in the country springs a strong commercial drive, and along with a handful of multimillion-dollar businesses, the North Shore is home to more than 10,000 small-sized businesses. I pledge to help them overcome any hurdles and to grow their opportunities. Reflecting modern New Zealand, we are a culturally diverse community, with nearly 10,000 Asians making up more than 15 percent of our numbers. As their elected representative, I pledge to do all I can to continue to build on their successes, and to work with other MPs from neighbouring electorates. The Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman has been of enormous help to me, and I look forward to working with him more closely in the future, and with Nikki Kaye as well.

The North Shore people reward excellence, and we look after our own with the AIMES Awards. We love to crow about our local heroes, our literary greats: Sargeson, Fairburn, Tuwhare, and Mason. There is no certainly no shortage of sporting greats, either, to celebrate: Sir Peter Blake, Ian Ferguson, Ralph Roberts, Buck Shelford, Allison Roe, Kirk Penney and the New Zealand Breakers, Jacko Gill—I could go on; the roll-call does not stop there. As the MP for North Shore, I am committed to building on that outstanding record, and focusing on achieving our aim of becoming the New Zealand centre for high performance sport. North Harbour is already home to the Millennium Institute of Sport and Health, and I would like to acknowledge and commend the hard work and determination of my colleague in the adjoining electorate of East Coast Bays, the Hon Murray McCully. I enthusiastically endorse the proposed National Ocean Water Sports Centre on Takapuna beach. The NOWSC centre will be a world-class training facility to develop up-and-coming athletes across the four codes of yachting, windsurfing, kayaking, and ocean swimming. I commit to helping overcome any hurdles in the formation of that centre.

The most commonly asked question of me in the past year has been: “Why on earth would you leave the wholesome pursuit of plants and go into the dirty business of politics?”. My erstwhile colleagues in the media had a field day when I said I was standing for Parliament: “Gardener of the nation takes on the parliamentary jungle.” There were references to “weeding out the opposition”. Malodorous and odious comparisons were made between MPs and mushrooms, both thriving in perpetual darkness and nourished on manure, and although I do expect that some manure will come my way, I certainly did not come here to be kept in the dark and fed a load of rubbish. Of course, I am not exactly gaining ground by this shift into politics. In last year’s Reader’s Digest most trustworthy professions, poll firefighters came in first, as usual—and fair enough too—journalists came in 38th out of 39, just above real estate agents, and politicians did not even feature in the 40, so I am staying in familiar unpopular territory.

I have known this Chamber for the past 30 years as a broadcaster and as a journalist, reporting and questioning the not always so honourable members. For all of those whose antics and machinations provided me with that bumper harvest to feed upon, you know who you are and I thank you kindly. I know firsthand from my days in radio and television news about the daily grind of finding news stories within tight deadlines, and I think on the whole the New Zealand media work hard, do a good job, and I congratulate them. But after 30 years of being part of the tribe that reports from sidelines, asking what and why and how, I decided the time was now right for me to step inside the legislative tent and to make a different contribution to the country that has given me so much.

As well as being a strong voice for the North Shore, there are also wider goals I am aiming to achieve in my time in this place. It is fair to say that I have some experience in broadcasting, and thanks to my family I have more than a passing interest in the health sector, having led a review into maternity services and palliative care, and being involved with Hospice New Zealand. During my mother’s 10-year decline with dementia I saw with sadness too many older people in residential care who did not have family around, and were without advocates to keep an eye on them. Our elderly deserve dignity and protection. I believe they have earned our respect and we certainly would not be the society that we are today without them. I agree with John Key that the measure of a civilised society is how we treat our vulnerable: our very young and our very old, and the one in five New Zealanders with disability.

Given my green-fingered background and lifelong love of plants, I hope that my knowledge and skills may be helpful to shape our environmental and conservation goals. Producing and presenting the garden show for 12 years on television gave me privileged access to people’s lives. Some of them were overwhelmed and daunted by the sheer scale of the planet’s problems, but personally I never doubted that saving the world starts in your own backyard. I share the views of many, that we are only the custodians of this land and the guardians, the kaitiaki, of our grandchildren’s heritage. We have to be vigilant and face up to our responsibilities and our woeful environmental track record. Over many days, over many decades, we have let too many introduced pests decimate our native plants, we have not treated our oceans and our waterways with the respect they deserve, and I want to be part of the Government that puts that right. As the convenor of this year’s up-and-coming Bluegreens Forum, we will be making progress on these issues, and I am excited to be involved in shaping the agenda for discussion around the country’s environmental and conservation concerns. I remain convinced we can both grow our economy and manage our environment better, and that improving the economy must not and need not be at the expense of the environment.

But in these troubled times we need to explore all our potential advantages—to tap into that famous traditional Kiwi ingenuity, increase our dairy production and returns, while looking to limit the adverse effect on water quality. In the 20 years I had my garden show business I travelled all over the world visiting over a thousand gardens. It was a dream job and I loved the places I went, but this is my home. New Zealand is my tūrangawaewae. I know where I stand. This is where I belong, and for me I am at my most patriotic about my homeland, and, believe me, I am not about to let anybody harm it. When I walk with the kauri, the pōhutukawa, and the tree ferns, these are my precious inhabitants of my “Cathedrals of Green”. I intend to work very hard on my select committees: the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Local Government and Environment Committee. I will personally welcome the opportunities to work constructively with politicians from other parties to secure the best outcome.

But ultimately I did not want to join Labour’s ranks, or become a Green Party MP. My values are different. I stood for National because I believe we have the right financial policies to see us through these troubled times. I agree with our goals. My mother and father raised me to believe that hand in hand with individual freedom comes personal responsibility, and that people sometimes do need a hand up, but a lifetime of handouts is not the answer. As a mother I am raising my teenage son with the same values, because I believe that they are as relevant today as they were when our party was founded 75 years ago. My constituents will always have my first loyalty, and I will do my very best to represent their interests with courage and with energy. I will be a strong voice for the North Shore, and I am very ambitious for my electorate. It is a privilege to begin my service to them today as their member of Parliament. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I rise with a sense of great history to present my maiden speech to Parliament. My Rangitīkei electorate has had a representative in this House for 150 years. My family have lived in the lower Rangitīkei for 160 years, and I am the 27th person to come here as a representative of the Rangitīkei electorate.

I am following some great people into this House, and I want to particularly take this opportunity to acknowledge the wonderful role my predecessor, Simon Power, played in the affairs of both the Rangitīkei electorate and New Zealand. He made his mark here, and left an impression that will last a long time. Simon is a man who in his time in politics was able to bridge the divide that the Westminster system of democracy creates. I sincerely hope that in my time here I may be able to encourage consensus that sees this House able to make the best possible decisions for our collective futures.

I wish to thank all those who have helped make my first few weeks in this place as easy as possible. From all those security people, who look after us on a daily basis, to the Prime Minister, they have been of great assistance. I wish to thank those who have helped me get here, particularly those who supported me during the election campaign, both with the campaign and with my induction into the National Party. A special thanks goes to my wife of 38 years, Sue—she is my No. 1 campaigner—and to our family, Diana, Cam, and Rachel; to Angus and Harri; to my mother, Rosemary; and to two brothers and a sister, who are sitting in the audience today and who have put up with many hours of following, filling in for, making excuses for, and supporting me in my somewhat unexpected career path to date. This career path was probably instilled in my blood by my father, John, a shy man who enjoyed politics and played a part in local government in all too short a life.

It is appropriate to acknowledge my near neighbours Iain Lees-Galloway and the Hon Chester Borrows, who represent the cities that will help forge the future for the people of the Rangitīkei electorate, for without strong leadership from our cities, rural New Zealand suffers. I must also acknowledge Tariana Turia, whose electorate covers the Rangitīkei and beyond and who is hugely respected for the work she does for our people.

The Rangitīkei electorate—for those who need to know—contains 4.5 million sheep, 400,000 beef cattle, 175,000 dairy cows, and 63,000 people, of whom 28 percent are Māori. We are also the home to the North Island ski fields, Tongariro National Park, the home bases of the New Zealand Army at Linton and Waiōuru, the Air Force at Ōhākea, and New Zealand’s largest university in Massey. Our electorate contains the brainy part of Palmerston North, stretches over 300 kilometres north to Taumarunui, and contains some of New Zealand’s most beautiful scenery. It also contains the bulk of New Zealand’s fragile hill country, ensuring that the activities of our regional council are critical to the future of that sector.

My driver throughout my public life to date has been to create a better place for future generations of my family and yours to live and work in. I am a sixth-generation New Zealander and have eighth-generation grandchildren, and I hope that my family will still be here enjoying our wonderful but different country in eight generations’ time.

I will give you a brief synopsis of my life to date before getting into the things that really matter to me and those who encouraged me to aspire to a stint in our Parliament. My family have lived within 2 kilometres of the place I live in since 1850. They have lived in the house I live in since 1900. We are Rangitīkei people. I was educated a pony ride—2 kilometres away on a metal road—from home, before going on to boarding school for the rest of my school life. This was followed by a short stint at Massey University, where I learnt a lot but passed little. I then farmed for quite a time before venturing into the commercial world via the motor industry with two very good friends of mine—and they have survived too and are both here today, as well. This, in turn, led to involvement as a director of various insurance, property, finance, and farming entities. One of those was the Farmers’ Mutual Group, or FMG—the pre-eminent rural insurer in New Zealand—which, despite the events of the past year and a half, is still a very strong and much-needed entity in our industry.

Some 9 years ago I was elected as Mayor of the Manawatū District following 4 years as president of the Royal Agricultural Society of New Zealand. My election as mayor taught me so much about the people and things that matter to them, about how to get communities working well, and about disaster, as we were hit by the massive 2004 floods and storms and needed a very large—at the time—recovery package put in place by the Government of the day. It also opened doors for me, and I am currently chairman of Special Olympics New Zealand, a position that has taught me so much about the disability sector in New Zealand. In my life to date I have also been president or chairman of various racing clubs, A and P shows, rugby clubs, our local schools, and a number of other community-based organisations.

Enough on me and on to why I am here. I was offered an opportunity to stand for the Rangitīkei electorate seat when Simon Power unexpectedly resigned. It was something I had never aspired to, but it seemed logical that I would take what I have learnt to date and use it in an effort to better our lives as New Zealanders. Those learnings are as follows. My time in agriculture has left me in no doubt that we will always be one of the world’s most efficient food producers, and we will continue to have a very important role to play in feeding pieces of the world as its population grows rapidly. To continue to achieve this, there are a number of issues that we must give attention to. The environment, our people, and our agriculture must travel hand in hand as we grapple with the effects we humans have had on our landforms, our rivers, and our natural heritage. Ecological sustainability is the key to the future of agriculture and our economic fortunes, and whether dealing with genetic engineering or the emissions trading scheme—particularly related to the food production sector or to the environment—we must use the very best science available to us to resolve these matters. They must be resolved expeditiously, and it is vital for our country’s future well-being that we invest heavily in this area.

Agriculture in New Zealand has had a financial battering over the past decade and must be treated carefully or it could still fail us. It needs nurturing not with cash but with sensible, well-trained policy. Agriculture in recent years in New Zealand has not had a sufficient level of profitability to reinvest in its future through science and innovation. I am delighted to see the Government taking action in this area, and look forward to the sector being able to play its part as well. Whilst on agriculture I want to make a plea for us not to encourage, through suspect policy, the planting of pine trees on land that can be used for food production. Pine trees are difficult to eat, and they are certainly difficult to get income out of, as well.

I also urge you as a Parliament to give time and thought to our equine industry. We are good at horses. It is international in almost every sphere of equine activity, and it has great potential if nurtured in the correct manner. The horse, particularly through the racing and breeding industry, is a very large employer in this country, and I have yet to see a robot riding one—Mark Todd aside—or a computer mucking out a stable. Encouraging the equine sector to work with each other in a unified manner could boost this sector significantly as an export earner.

Rural New Zealand, its towns and its people, is very important to our futures, and we must endeavour to keep people living throughout our country. It is not in the national interest to push our population north. We must encourage people to live in our small rural towns and on our farms. To do this we must carefully consider the ramifications of much of our policy making, as often small changes can improve the lot of those people dramatically. And I refer particularly to the manner in which telecommunications, electricity, education, health, law and order, and transport services are delivered to rural New Zealand. An example of that is the poor supply of electricity to parts of New Zealand. It is a major inhibitor to economic growth, with a number of areas in my electorate not having sufficient supply to enable new cowsheds or irrigation schemes to operate efficiently. Part of the reason for this has been a lack of sufficient land use planning throughout our history, really—a factor that must be corrected. Another factor that is easy to overlook but which is a very important factor in an electorate like Rangitīkei is the time our children spend on the school bus, and 2 to 3 hours a day is not uncommon in my electorate—hence the ferociousness with which rural communities defend their small schools.

Briefly on the matter of our broader economy, a topic that I think we need to have some serious discussion on is our poor understanding of risk—how to evaluate it and how to manage it. This is one of the factors behind the increase in the cost of local government to our community and to businesses, and is driven, to some extent, by our interpretation of the Building Act, the Resource Management Act, and occupational health and safety, among other things. Without capacity to understand, manage, and utilise risk, businesses struggle to expand. Most of the great businesses in the world took significant calculated risk to grow.

I do not believe we should take anything for granted in life. I do not think we have any rights in life, property or otherwise. We must earn them. I have a strong belief in what I call social order or justice, and that often means that those who have should give a hand up to those who have not. Where I come from, unhappy people do not make a happy workforce, and our country cannot operate effectively with an unhappy workforce. To achieve this we must have a strong, progressive economy, enabling us to pay what a person is worth. We can no longer allow the well-off to claim on the welfare systems by hiding income or assets. There is no place in New Zealand society for greed, and we have seen and suffered from plenty of that in the last few years.

Through family experience, and more recently through my role as chairperson of Special Olympics New Zealand, I have a particular interest in the lives and circumstances of our disabled community. There are an estimated 55,000 people born with an intellectual disability in this country, a large majority of whom are males. There are nearly a quarter of a million physically disabled New Zealanders. We know that investment in this sector produces significant gains for the people and families involved and for our country as a whole. I will continue my strong advocacy for these New Zealanders and support them in their efforts to achieve better life expectancy and make a greater contribution to our society.

Sport and recreation is one of the gems in life—without it we do not survive—and we must continue to encourage young and old alike to participate in all levels of physical activity. To do this, some key changes are needed to our traditional thinking around sporting infrastructure. We need diverse, climate-immune facilities and we need to be able to provide easy access for people who wish to exercise from home—for example, walking, biking, and boarding. I call it door-to-door exercise, and to achieve this our communities must be safe and our infrastructure must be safe, well planned, and well maintained.

One could not have spent 9 years in local government without acknowledging there must be a better way, and there is and it does not involve dramatic change. In past years local government has struggled with the costs of implementing legislation passed on to it by central government. A good deal of it came care of the stringent but expansive conditions placed on councils by the Local Government Act 2002. There are, at the same time, many talented and able people doing a wonderful job in what is a complex and very demanding sector. I can only commend the Prime Minister for elevating the local government portfolio to an important place in Cabinet, and I think it is the first time I recall it being in Cabinet for some years. I wish Minister Smith all the best as he confronts the many challenges that lie before local authorities throughout New Zealand.

In this country we are seriously testing our talented-people resources by the number of governance bodies we have created, and as a consequence we have the requirement for large numbers of chief executives, chief financial officers, and elected members or directors. Many of these are becoming specialised positions, often prescribed by law, and we need to ensure we use our talented people to the best possible advantage. We should also bear in mind that letters after one’s name are not necessarily a prerequisite for success in life. There is no question that the further we spread the talent pool in New Zealand, the lesser the talent we have available.

I am in awe of this place and its history, but was surprised on opening day when Parliament emptied out as our leaders spoke. Whatever our political persuasion, we owe each other the common courtesy of at least listening once in relative calmness. You cannot fool the people. Respect and common old good manners are still valued by most in this country, and they watch us closely through our friends—the media.

People are everything in life. Without each other we are nothing. No matter what race, creed, sex, age, or ability—mental or physical—everyone in this wonderful country must be cared for and encouraged to achieve their best. There is no left and right in good health, educational opportunity, having work, or preventing violence to one another. To achieve this, we must have an inclusive Government and take the people with us.

I am a great believer in protocol and tradition. It puts some order and discipline in our lives, and on that basis I wish to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, and your team of deputies on your appointments. Although I am absolutely sincere in this, it does remind me a little of dropping off a leg of lamb for the banker. Mr Speaker and fellow members of this great establishment, despite being written off as being too old and not expected to shine by some Australian tip sheet, I hope in my time here to make a contribution to New Zealand, and I hope that when I get to leave, and I hope to choose that time, that our country is a better place to live in. Thank you.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I stand before you today filled with pride at being given the opportunity by the people of Rodney to represent them in this, our 50th Parliament, and I am honoured to be addressing the House for the first time. Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your reappointment to the high office of Speaker. You have already been recognised across this House for your sound judgment and fairness, and I look forward to being under your guidance in this Chamber.

Mr Speaker, you have been Minister of Education, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Tourism, and Minister for International Trade during your career, and oversaw the producer board reform that ultimately led to the creation of Fonterra and Zespri Group Ltd. You launched our successful “100% Pure” marketing campaign, which was a global success. But perhaps most important, you were the original instigator of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. You are also renowned for your singing voice, and your annual concert in Rodney is an event constituents look forward to every year. I have made a commitment to continue with this concert, and although I feel my own voice is pretty good I have been assured by those closest to me that I need to find another way of keeping that tradition alive.

I live in Ōrewa, in the heart of the Rodney electorate. Rodney is a wonderful part of New Zealand, stretching from Albany Heights, Wainui, and Dairy Flat in the south, to Warkworth, Matakana, and Leigh in the north. We have been blessed with the beautiful Hibiscus and Kowhai coasts, stunning regional parks like Shakespear Regional Park, Wenderholm, and Mahurangi, and we are home to two marine reserves, one of which, Goat Island, was the first in New Zealand. The new Northern Motorway has brought Auckland closer to Rodney, and our towns in the south of the electorate are experiencing strong growth while still retaining their unique character. Further north, our communities are more rural. Some have become famous, like Pūhoi for its pub and cheese factory, or Waiwera for its geothermal hot pools. We have the charm and history of Warkworth, world-class wine trails, great schools, strong communities, and a real pride in our beautiful part of New Zealand.

However, there are challenges ahead and I am focused on finding solutions that will allow us to develop our infrastructure and services in step with our population growth. This includes the Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway extension and the Penlink development, and I will work hard on common-sense policies and legislation that will encourage investment and growth in our local businesses and economy.

I would like to acknowledge my superb campaign team, who worked incredibly hard, who did the basics superbly, combined with innovative ideas, and really took the campaign to our opponents. I know many of you are gathered around the TV today in Warkworth and Ōrewa, and although I cannot mention everyone, you know that our result was a testament to your drive, passion, and belief in the National Party values and vision for a brighter future. I would like to make special mention of our electorate chair, Jennie Georgetti, and campaign chair, John Evans. Your determination and will were contagious. Thanks also to our regional executive, Alan Towers and Stephen McElrea. Stephen, your solid, dependable advice and guidance was of great assistance to a new candidate. Thanks to our National campaign team who provided a steady rudder and reliable compass to us all, and to president Peter Goodfellow and our board of directors for your support, guidance and counsel.

I was born on the North Shore of Auckland and spent my first years living on the Whenuapai Airbase. My dad was a flight lieutenant, flying Orions in No. 3 squadron. My mum was the daughter of the base commander, Air Commodore Frank Gill—my grandfather—who was also the National Party MP for East Coast Bays, Minister of Health, and Minister of Defence, and our New Zealand Ambassador to Washington. Dad managed to catch the eye of my mum at a base dance and the rest, as they say, is history.

One of the great lessons I learnt early from my dad was about not giving up. When the inaugural Auckland Star Takapuna to Rangitoto race was cancelled due to bad weather, Dad decided to make the swim anyway. He battled strong winds and swells to complete a difficult swim. He won the race and set the best time. Being the only competitor did not matter. Because my mum was the daughter of a career air force officer and spent her childhood on different postings around the world, when she was finally able to settle in one place she nested. There were four of us kids, but our house was always filled with orphans whom Mum would take under her wing. I learnt early that not everyone is born into a loving, caring home, and that when we can help, we should.

I am from Irish Catholic, English, and Canadian stock, with my ancestors arriving in New Zealand from 1860 through to 1919. I was educated at Rosmini College in Auckland, a Catholic school, whose motto is “Legis plenitudo charitas”—charity fulfils the law. A Google search of social justice will result in the name of Father Antonio Rosmini, the original founder of the school. I am a strong advocate of social justice. However, I reject claims that social justice and conservatism are exclusive of one another. On leaving school I went farming in the central North Island. I was lucky enough to be given my first job by Gary Ramsay, who is here today in the gallery. Farming taught me what long hours of hard physical work and graft were all about. Our farmers and our rural sector is where our No. 8 wire attitude and common-sense approach to problem solving was born.

From my own time overseas in a competitive environment, I discovered that those problem-solving skills and “failure is not an option” attitude helped me stand out amongst the crowd. As a country we need to recognise the importance of these qualities and fight hard to retain them as part of our culture and psyche.

In 1989 I joined the New Zealand Police. I was a member of the dog section and armed offenders squad. I would like to acknowledge the officer in charge of the police dog training centre, Sergeant John Edmonds, who is here today. I was lucky enough to have been able to serve with you, and it is a great honour to have you present here today. My partner on the dog section was a small black German shepherd named Czar. When we graduated, our final report stated Czar was a natural-born police dog, and that if the team did not perform operationally, the handler should be replaced, not the dog. He loved children but did not have much time for adults. One of the first jobs we attended together put us head to head with an offender armed with a samurai sword, whose intent was to attack medical staff at Rotorua Hospital. During the arrest both Czar and I were stabbed—me through my right arm and Czar in the chest. We both recovered, although I never regained the full use of my arm.

I thank the Hon Judith Collins for the leadership she provided in making sure our police officers were given every tactical advantage and option available. Had Tasers been around in my day, I would have had a much better tennis swing. One thing I could see early in my career was the amount of damage gangs and organised crime did to our communities. Whether they be the Mongrel Mob, Hell’s Angels, or Asian triads, they are parasites living off the back of our communities and a bunch of low-life cowards. Hunting in packs, they rob, steal, rape, murder, intimidate, assault, and generally terrorise anyone unlucky enough to get in their way. Many of the social issues we face today are connected either directly or indirectly to the gang culture.

Our police service is now being led by leaders rather than managers. With morale the highest it has been for years and with the best police officers in the world we are on the right side of the ledger in continuing to tackle gangs and organised crime. Our brave men and women of all our emergency services have my full support, admiration, and gratitude for the services you provide our country. I make a commitment to my electorate that I will be strong on law and order and will support changes to bail laws that strengthen the rights and protection for victims of crime.

Our Rodney health services are very important, with a growing population and a high number of older people choosing to retire in Rodney. I support our locally driven initiatives, like the Rodney Health Trust and the Rodney Surgical Centre, which are providing local services for our communities. I am proud of how far we have come as a country in our understanding, caring, and tolerance of those suffering from a mental illness or depression. I was often asked if I was angry at the person who stabbed me, who at the time was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. No, I was not angry with him. He did not wake up one morning saying: “I want to be a paranoid schizophrenic.” He was ill with a sickness he did not want.

In 2000 I lost my younger brother, Sean. He was intelligent, the life of the party, an active member of the Auckland coastguard rescue team, and was diagnosed with manic depression. He wrote a letter to us, his family, and then swam into the Rangitoto Channel. We found him the next day washed up on Rangitoto Island. We love and miss you, Sean. I applaud John Kirwan and the courage it took to tell his own story about depression and the debilitating effects it can have. I am committed to supporting the mental health services in our communities.

In 2002 I resigned from the police to live a quiet life raising and training horses in Taupō. But fate had other plans, and in 2003 I found myself in Iraq as part of a small team establishing a safety and security programme for the newly formed interim Government. It was a tough year for me, because it was the first time in my life I was exposed to the ugliness of corruption and extreme ideologies in a country where there was very little regard for human life. The first election in Iraq had over 7,000 candidates for 235 parliamentary positions. Opposing candidates would dispose of each other with roadside bombs and hit squads. It helped me to put a little context around the teapot tapes last year. In 2005 I was asked to establish the Provincial Joint Operations Centre in southern Iraq. This was the command centre for all the newly formed Iraqi security forces. Iraq faces some very big challenges in its rebuild, but I was lucky enough to work with some very good men and women, and, where there are good men and women, there is hope.

In 2005 I was approached and asked to establish a security programme for a company that was providing food and life support to the coalition in Iraq. Seen as a legitimate target by al-Qaeda as they were supporting the Government, employees of the company were being attacked and killed. The security programme I put in place was successful and soon I was being approached by Governments, including the United States, Japan, and Australia, to assist with logistics and protective support in high-threat and difficult environments.

Although I have the deepest respect for organisations such as the United Nations, I also saw how difficult it was for big, bureaucratic organisations to move quickly when sometimes people needed protection and aid today, as it would be too late tomorrow. I am proud of the fact I was part of a dedicated team that formed an initiative backed by the World Economic Forum to create emergency logistics teams set up to deploy aid into areas struck by humanitarian disasters. I am proud that we led refugees out of Lebanon to safety when they were trapped in a war between Israel and Hezbollah, that we protected and supported scientists from the Hague to open and take evidence from mass graves in their case against Saddam Hussein, that we delivered food and medical supplies to flood-ravaged areas of Pakistan and ensured it got to the people who needed it, and that we were able to open up a supply chain to get food and medical supplies into Darfur and Mogadishu.

I have been a farmer, a policeman, a small business owner, and the founder of a successful global company. I understand the pressures they face, the responsibility they carry, and the importance that each one plays in the future of our country. But they cannot carry the weight by themselves. I believe that for the privilege of living in this beautiful country, regardless of when we arrived, we all have the same obligation, and that is to look for ways to contribute to New Zealand’s future.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family. To my wife, Peggy—I would not be standing here today delivering this maiden speech if it was not for your unconditional love and support. You have helped me achieve my dream, and I hope that I can help you achieve yours. To my children, Taylor, Spencer, and Jazlin—your father was taken away from you and New Zealand too early. Possum was the only sportsman in New Zealand to beat the Aussies in their own national championship seven times in a row—what a legend. But first and foremost, he was a loving and caring father. I will continue to do my best to provide you with the love and security that your father would have provided. To my daughter, Sylvie—yes, honey, it did feel like life had really begun for me when you came into this world, and I am proud of the caring young lady you are growing into. To my son, Nathan—you’re the man. Your energy and enthusiasm for life is contagious. To my sisters, Lissa and Tracey—I love you both. Thank you to my Auntie Francis and Uncle Rodney, and to Geoffrey and Lynda Bourne, for also being here.

I am back in the service of my country. There is no greater honour. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): In 1854 this House met for the first time on the outskirts of Auckland. It consisted of just 37 people. Those 37 could scarcely imagine how New Zealand would change over the coming century and a half. Since that time 1,362 people have held seats in Parliament and each one has given a maiden speech. It is difficult to imagine how I might say something original, but I will give it a shot.

Maiden speeches seem to me a curious exercise. They are an introduction, a moment of history, and a statement for posterity all at once. They are also time for reflection at the beginning of a new chapter in which each of us can consider the events in our lives that have led us to this place at this point of time. I, like all who have stood in this House, have been asked many times why I decided to enter Parliament and politics. I have always noted that there was no one particular moment. It has been an organic process that has developed slowly over many years while working alongside people from all walks of life.

I have worked in many challenging environments, from prisons and homeless shelters, to rest homes and hospitals; from the streets of Brooklyn, New York, to the island of Taveuni in Fiji. In doing so, I have seen some of the best and worst aspects of humanity. I have sat with those mourning the dead, and celebrated the hope of a newborn child. I have encouraged those who suffer under the curse of drug addiction, counselled those who work on the streets, and listened to those off the streets who simply need to be heard. It has, for me, been the stories shared, the struggles endured, and the experiences lived that have drawn me more and more to this new opportunity to serve New Zealand here in this House.

The varied experiences that have filled my life thus far cause me to look forward to working for the great constituency of Tāmaki and engaging with its communities, from St Heliers to Glen Innes, Ōrākei to Glendowie, and all the suburbs in between. I love working with people and for people. It has defined my life to date, and I hope and expect it will do so far into the future.

I have come to Parliament with not only a desire to serve the people of this country, but also a conviction that ideas are powerful things. I believe that ideas, well articulated, can change the world. The importance of robust, rational debate is a passion of mine—one that requires the constant and consistent application of considered principles. I reject political fundamentalism where part of the truth is overemphasised at the expense of everything else. No great idea needs such a dishonest offence. Some might consider me optimistic to hope that in this auspicious Chamber there is still room for genuine debate and constructive discussion. About this I may be optimistic, but there are few things I think far more deserving of optimism than this place of thoughts and ideas, of discussions and debates. I hope that in the coming years I may contribute something to them all.

I seek to contribute because I am a proud New Zealander. I am a Kiwi through and through, having spent most—almost all—of my life in Whangarei and Auckland. There are those who question what it means to be a New Zealander. They suppose we lack an identity or lament that it is not what they would wish it to be. I have no time for such a myopic perspective. New Zealand has a clear and strong identity, which has grown and evolved over the centuries that have preceded us. Most Kiwis know who they are and what they stand for, and spend very little time worrying about labelling it. Some of our principles have changed over time, but the most important ones, our fundamental values, have not. The importance of family, hard work, personal responsibility, and a fair go for all remains central to who we are.

Of course one cannot stand in this room and speak of great Kiwi traditions without acknowledging our extraordinary democracy. I believe that New Zealand has the best democratic and constitutional structure in the world. I realise that this is not a thought that occurs to many people on a frequent basis, but this is probably more of a testament to its veracity than anything else. My belief in our constitution has arisen not from ideology or blind patriotism but from an appreciation developed over many years of observation and study. Democracy is not something that should ever be taken for granted.

At the heart of our constitution sits the Crown. It is an ingenious, ever-evolving entity that plays a role in so many aspects of our country. It is a valuable guardian of our democracy, a symbol of our independence, and a sign of our political resourcefulness. I am pleased to acknowledge today the 60 years of service that the Queen of New Zealand has given to all Kiwis. It is my hope that in the years ahead New Zealand may make its own monarchy ever more distinct and an even more uniquely Kiwi institution.

I suspect that most here today would agree that New Zealand is the greatest country on earth. But that is not to say it is a perfect nation. Again, I suspect that most here are cognisant of the many problems our society faces. Foremost among them is the scourge of violence in our society. If there is one general area to which I wish to apply my time and experience it is to ending, or at least greatly reducing, violence in our communities. Of course, there is no single solution, no quick fix. It is a perennial issue that has been grappled with by successive parliaments. I believe that this National-led Government is taking great steps in the right direction, but there is much work still to be done. Some is legislative, but the most difficult work is changing attitudes.

I fear that New Zealand accepts violence too easily. Aggression is celebrated, verbal and emotional abuse is tolerated in public discourse, and people are willing to turn a blind eye towards those suffering at the hands of bullies. The prevalence of domestic violence, violence against children, and the random acts of violence on our streets is a sad indictment of us all. I do not believe that it is a simple matter to resolve this tragedy, but neither do I feel that it is hopeless. Like all problems we face in New Zealand, we begin with a commitment to fix what is wrong, to persevere in what is required, and to accept only success. This is how we have tackled problems in our past, and this is what is required now to build a safe and secure society for all.

This room is full of leaders, representatives of their constituencies and communities. Their commitment to ending violence in our country is essential, but the work of many others outside this building is also required. Fortunately, New Zealand has no shortage of dedicated, principled, and energetic citizens. I feel it is important to recognise that none of us stands in this Parliament alone. We are born into a community, live in that community, and as individuals are at our strongest when we are in the midst of that community and those who matter the most.

There are many people to whom I owe a huge debt of gratitude for their support and encouragement over the years and who have been very influential in my being here today. My parents, Rory and Colleen, are in the gallery this afternoon. A son could have not had better parents and my gratitude can only ever be a small measure of what I owe to them. If there is one lesson amongst the many they taught me and that I can bring to Parliament it is that love is not an economic commodity or one that is scarce when times are tough. Sitting with them are my siblings, Bernadette and Vincent. I am lucky to have such a great brother and sister. When required, they know how to put me in my place—a skill several people in this room will be interested in hearing about I am sure.

To my friends across this country and around the world, I would like to thank you for the insights and humour, lessons, and memories. William Yeats said: “Think where man’s glory most begins and ends, and say my glory was I had such friends.” Truer words have not been spoken. To those friends here today, I say thanks to you and, through you, to all who could not be here. To Ben Lee, Charles and Leigh Hay, Lynne Francis and Sean Palmer, Gordon Pilot, to Paul Foster-Bell, Chloe Oldfield, Brian Anderton, Aaron Hape, and Paul Byers—thank you all for your help and encouragement over the years. I thank the Auckland University fencers for all the fun, the laughter, the debates, and the bruises. I am optimistic that my years of fencing may have well prepared me for the cut and thrust of this political place.

I acknowledge my caucus colleagues for the help and support that they have given me over the last few months. I would particularly like to thank Dr Jackie Blue and Dr Cam Calder, both of whom I have worked closely with over the past 6 years. The opportunity to be part of your electorates and to lead your campaign teams was great preparation for my own path to Parliament. I must also acknowledge my predecessor, Allan Peachey. His sad passing last year cut short the work he sought to undertake in this House. I want to recognise his family, and the kindnesses they have shown me as I have prepared to represent Tāmaki in this House.

Tāmaki is an electorate with a formidable story, a narrative known all over the country. I am conscious of the role I play in writing its next chapter, but fortunately I am not the sole author. I am pleased to work alongside the finest electorate team in New Zealand—Andrew Hunt, Christine MacFarlane, Jim McElwain, and Aaron Bhatnagar are here today. I am immensely proud to be your MP, and conscious of your expectations. I will not let you down. Ros Rundle, Adriana Gunder, Eric Hansen, Phil Martell, Simon King, Cher Reynolds, Mariana Nordmark, Sharon Ludher-Chandra, Todd Mulller, Dan Gardiner, Graham and Matt Malaghan, Kit Parkinson, and Cyrus Richardson form the electorate leadership team, but could not be here today. Without their help and support, I would not be either.

I am grateful to the National Party for the opportunities it has provided me. My commitment to our shared principles is absolute. I am conscious that my selection as an MP is both a privilege and a responsibility. The list of those who have helped guide me to this role is long, and I cannot thank each one by name, but I hope all of them know how much I appreciate their efforts and their friendships. I will thank in particular Alastair Bell and Alan Towers, Nicholas Albrecht, Josh Beddell, Alan Conlon, James Palmer, Murray Broadbelt, Chris King, and Scott Simpson, who was the first party figure with whom I spoke of my parliamentary aspirations. Scott, I am thrilled that we enter this 50th Parliament together.

It is an honour to be here as the member of Parliament for Tāmaki. It is a welcome opportunity to serve my constituency, to listen to their needs, and to articulate them here in this House. I look forward to the future in my new role but, in the finest conservative traditions, I will venture into that future with a clear understanding of, and respect for, the past. I will work hard to live up to the expectations of our first 37 parliamentarians who, 150 years ago, launched New Zealand’s democracy. I believe this 50th Parliament is the heir to all the hopes and dreams of the thousand MPs who have come before us. We are here today to build a better country, and I hope that those who occupy this House 150 years from now might look back upon us and say that we were successful. I can think of no greater honour than to know that I may have been a part of that.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Mr Speaker, congratulations on your re-election, and also to your fellow presiding officers on their appointment to roles overseeing the smooth and efficient conduct of our proceedings during this 50th Parliament of New Zealand. It is with a mixture of great pride, awe, and humility that I rise to speak as the new MP for Coromandel. I am very conscious of the huge honour I have been given by my party in being selected as a candidate, and of the even greater honour granted to me by the people of Coromandel in electing me to be their voice, their representative, their face, in this place. I acknowledge a fellow contestant for the seat, Catherine Delahunty, who sits in this House by virtue of the Green Party list.

Coromandel evokes in the minds of almost every New Zealander the very best images of the classic Kiwi summer—beautiful beaches, iconic bush, and natural scenery second to none in our country. Indeed, the peninsula proper is not only home to people who get to enjoy those gems on a daily basis, it is also the favoured holiday destination for tens of thousands of visitors each year, who now access and exit the area over our wonderful new Kōpū Bridge. No longer are they subject to long delays and frustrating traffic jams, and in fact a story published locally in Thames just last week commenting on how well the new bridge had coped with heavier than expected Waitangi weekend traffic summed it up beautifully with the simple headline “Thank you Mr Key”.

But the Coromandel electorate is more than just the Coromandel Peninsula. It includes the Hauraki Plains, our dairy heartland, through the scenic Karangahake Gorge to Waihī and Waihī Beach, and south to the jewel of the western Bay of Plenty, Katikati. It is a diverse electorate, an electorate with a rich heritage and a bright future.

It is an electorate mature in its demographic. We have the highest number of people aged between 50 and 64, and the second-highest number of people aged 64-plus of any electorate in New Zealand. When added together, those two age segments highlight a series of issues confronting us, not the least of which is how to encourage more young people to make Coromandel their home and to raise their families in our part of paradise.

The answer lies in economic development, jobs, and prosperity, and I am very pleased to be a member of a John Key - led Government committed to encouraging economic growth for provincial and rural New Zealand. I am looking forward to supporting existing well-established agricultural, fishing, tourism, and manufacturing businesses and to encouraging the establishment of new, innovative, and exciting enterprises. In particular, I am looking forward to the new opportunities to be created by an expansion of our already excellent aquacultural sector, which will bring further jobs and enterprise to our area.

My predecessor, Sandra Goudie, devoted herself unstintingly to the people of Coromandel. Today I pledge the same devotion in the hope that the aspiration she and I both have for Coromandel can and will be continuously advanced here in Parliament and within our wider community.

Although most of my working life has been in commerce and business, for the last few years I have had the very great privilege of being chief executive officer of the greatest little charity in New Zealand, Make-a-Wish. It is a charity devoted to a simple mission of granting the one cherished wish of children and young people coping with life-threatening, sometimes terminal, medical conditions. Members, let me assure you there can be no greater joy than to work in a job where literally, on a daily basis, you are a professional wish granter. It remains to be seen whether I will be able to transfer that skill set to this workplace.

Granting wishes to very ill youngsters taught me many things, most of which I guess I already knew, but some experiences certainly reinforced for me some simple life truths. Life is not fair. Bad stuff does happen. Bad stuff happens irrespective of family, circumstance, age, gender, wealth, or location. But on the other hand, small things count. Small gestures of kindness and goodwill have enormous power and magic not just for children and young people coping with dire medical conditions, but for all people, all humans, all mankind. These are things I hope never to forget during my time in this place.

Seventy-six years ago the National Party was formed by far-sighted people with a far-sighted national vision for a better New Zealand. Seventy-six years ago New Zealand was a new, pioneering nation still struggling to come to terms with the worst local and world economic depression ever known—a country still reeling from the human and emotional impacts of the Great War, where the sacrifice of young New Zealand blood was greater than a new, developing nation found tolerable to bear.

Both my grandfathers served at Gallipoli. Both eventually returned home, although one was wounded at Gallipoli, patched up, and then sent to fight on in France. The plaques adorning this Chamber stand as honourable tribute to that sacrifice and to subsequent further Kiwi sacrifice, silent but powerful reminders to each of us of the past high price paid by others for our freedom to be here today.

Many of those early National Party founders were the sons and daughters of immigrant pioneering families. Like the tangata whenua who had arrived centuries earlier, they came with little in the way of personal possessions. But they came with the greatest asset of all: a gritty, stubborn, and unshakable belief that through hard work, determination, and passion their dreams of a better life than the one they had left behind could be forged for their children and grandchildren in a new, little country, rich in natural resources, and blessed with a moderate climate and fertile soils.

Today we are all the beneficiaries of that determination, hard work, and foresight. Each member of this House has progressed a journey to be here. Some have been catapulted almost unexpectedly here. Others, like me, have watched the affairs of our Parliament from the sidelines for years, and many, like me, have been volunteer activists within our party organisational wings for far longer than we care to remember. I have done so since schooldays.

Active participation in our democracy is important, and although I have had my fair share of ups and downs, it will always be my advice to political friend or foe alike to get involved, be active, have your say, and always fight for what you believe in. Doing so may not always result in the outcomes sought, but doing so will mean that you have had the satisfaction of being a participant, rather than a mere observer who simply has to live with the result destined by those who did choose to step up and get involved.

For me the game started early, while I was still at school. The year was 1975—hard to believe, I know. Rob Muldoon was barnstorming his way to a huge victory over Labour. My hard-working parents were running the small 7-day-a-week business they had established early in their married life. We lived in Mount Eden—the suburb, not the prison. It was my School Certificate year.

It was the Eden electorate. Aussie Malcolm was the National candidate running against a first-term Labour MP, Mike Moore. Eden was the most marginal bell-wether seat in New Zealand. Aussie Malcolm ran under the provocative campaign slogan “Malcolm will do Moore for Eden”. The politics was intense, exciting, and, as it turned out for me, highly addictive. I guess for a teenager in the 1970s, given the range of possible addictions on offer, politics was at the lower end of the parental concern spectrum. Aussie Malcolm went on to beat Mike Moore, and the rest is, as they say, history.

Over the years I have developed an enormous regard for the army of ordinary Kiwis from all walks of life who make up the volunteer wing of the National Party. No National MP sits in this House without the support, endorsement, and backing of those people. I would like to acknowledge and thank all those people who have helped me along the way. An embarrassingly large number are here with me in the gallery today, along with friends and members of both my close and extended family. Thank you for your ongoing support, friendship, and love. My Coromandel team was during the campaign, and remain so today, a truly outstanding team of people—too many to name individually, but so ably led by electorate chairman, Ian McClean, and campaign manager, Heather Tanner. Thank you, one and all.

For those interested in such things, the maiden speech of Sir Jack Marshall, delivered in this House 65 years ago, is regarded as setting the benchmark in terms of defining what we these days label as liberal conservatism. And it is to that subject I now turn. Let me make it clear at the outset that the concept of liberalism does not mean at all anything to do with the touchy-feely, namby-pamby, soft-soap approach so often the political homeland of parties on the left. Rather, liberalism is an acknowledgment that as a citizen I have the right to live my life in my own way, provided only that this does not interfere with the rights of others; that I should be free to do as I wish, subject only to the rule of law.

The Hon Chris Finlayson teased out these concepts in his own maiden speech. He said, and I agree entirely, that the left may have admitted that the right won the great economic debate of the 20th century and that socialism in its many and varied forms has failed, but the left still wants to regulate and control. Its natural instinct remains one of “only we know best”.

For me the contrast between that view and the view of the National Party could not be more stark. National Party principles are liberal principles: a belief that personal effort and initiative should be rewarded; a belief that individual responsibility and accountability for our own actions and, indeed, inactions provide the foundation stones of our society; a belief that it is individuals who are best placed to make decisions about their future, not the State; and that free, open, and property-owning democracy provides the best model of Government. These are the values and principles the National Party was founded on 76 years ago, and they are principles that are as relevant today as ever they were.

The principles on which our society is built, in spite of vocal minorities who would work to make it not so, are principles of liberal democracy. But liberalism and democracy are actually two different things. Democracy is a method for choosing and removing Governments. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a doctrine about what society ought to be, what Governments should or should not do, and, above all, liberalism is a doctrine that defines limits to Government power.

I am convinced there is a common thread of liberalism through our nation, whether we choose to recognise it or not. That common thread encompasses freedom of action and of individual rights, tempered by a willingness not to interfere with the rights of others whilst pursuing our own. It encompasses a society of racial and religious tolerance, one of equality of opportunity and equality before the law. The suggestion that a liberal is someone who wants to liberalise everything is, of course, entirely wrong. Merely recognising and respecting the ideas and opinions of others does not mean the same thing at all as accepting, embracing, or adopting those ideas.

It is not a question of what we are prepared to tolerate as a society but, rather, what we are prepared to defend. For me it is the defence of a relentlessly optimistic outlook for my electorate and for our nation; the defence of that gritty, stubborn, and unshakable belief that a brighter, more prosperous future lies ahead for our children and our grandchildren if only we here today, in this place and of this generation, have the personal and collective strength to step up and make it so. For a little country with so much going for us we spend far too much time and energy focusing on the things that hold us back, on the roadblocks and the reasons why things cannot be so.

As I conclude this, my first address in our House of Representatives, mark me down as one who stands firmly on the side of those who can do and will do. Mark me down as a supporter of growth and opportunity. Mark me down as a champion of individual rights over State rights, of freedom and tolerance tempered at all times by the often forgotten important obligation of responsibility for actions and inactions. Mark me down as a defender of our very best liberal democratic values, and as a staunch advocate for volunteer political activism. Mark me down as a new member who has come here now to be an active and energetic participant from within, rather than a casual spectator from the sidelines.

I am a fourth-generation New Zealander of European descent. My great-grandparents arrived in Kuatōunu on the Coromandel Peninsula in the mid-1800s. I am the very proud father of Andrew and Ashleigh. My name is Scott Simpson. I am the National Party member of Parliament for Coromandel reporting for duty.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As a Chinese who immigrated to New Zealand only 13 years ago, I feel extremely honoured standing here before you all to give my maiden speech today. Firstly, I would like to thank the Chinese community for their encouragement and support. Guangda de huaren huaqiao pengyoumen, wo ganxie nimen de yiguan zhichi he houai. Zhe yike ye shuyu nimen.

I am grateful to my colleagues at the University of Auckland, particularly the staff of the department of political studies. Special thanks go to Professor Barry Gustafson and Professor Raymond Miller, from whom I learnt a great deal about New Zealand politics, and who both encouraged me to step out of theoretical politics and into real politics.

I thank the board directors of the National Party for their trust. In particular, I thank our president, Peter Goodfellow. I cannot overstate Peter’s help in the past few months. I also thank my party colleagues for their warm welcome and support. And I thank the Prime Minister for his trust and guidance. Most of all I thank my family: my parents in China, who cannot be here today, my wife Jane, and my daughters, Suzie and Evelyn. I fully understand the sacrifices my family have to make, and it was not an easy decision to leave the ivory tower and jump into the turbulent sea of real politics. Thank you, Jane, Suzie, and Evelyn, for your love and trust.

As the Prime Minister noted in his first speech to the new Parliament, the National Party was the first party in New Zealand to have a Chinese MP. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the achievement of the honourable Pansy Wong. My election into Parliament lays down yet another milestone in the history of Chinese immigrants in New Zealand. I am the first National MP who is an immigrant from mainland China.

The Chinese community in New Zealand has experienced rapid growth in the past two to three decades. We are attracted by, among other things, New Zealand’s second-to-none environment, democratic political system, equal economic opportunities, and stable society. As an immigrant who witnessed and experienced the many political upheavals in China, I do not take any of the benefits I am enjoying now for granted. My grandfather was a general of the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang, which is today the ruling party in Taiwan.

When the Communist Party came to power in China in 1949, my grandfather lost all his property, was imprisoned, and lived in poverty for the rest of his life. In the first 30 years of the People’s Republic of China the Chinese Government launched one political movement after another, climaxing with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, beginning in 1966. The revolution left behind millions of political victims, including my parents, who were sent to the countryside to be re-educated by peasants.

In 1978, under the rule of Deng Xiaoping, China made the historic decision to reform and open up. Capitalism began to flourish. Deng’s virtue of pragmatism is highlighted by his most famous quotation: “I don’t care if it’s a white cat or a black cat. It’s a good cat as long as it catches mice.” In that same year of 1978, I passed the newly restored higher-education examination and became part of a small group of high school graduates who went on to university. The change in China since 1978 has been awe-inspiring. China today is a different world. But the journey has certainly not all been smooth.

In April 1989 a great opportunity was opened up for me when I received a scholarship from the Johns Hopkins University in America. However, in the weeks following, student demonstrations swept China. The Chinese Government’s policy change afterwards prevented me from leaving to study in the United States. Fortunately for China, after a period of hesitation, the Government decided to continue its reformation. In 1994 I started my postgraduate study in Australia, and in 1999 I completed my PhD and began my work at the University of Auckland.

My experiences reiterate the inescapable influence of politics on our lives, and greatly contrast the deep value placed on political rights and freedom that we enjoy in New Zealand. For this reason, I appreciate the National Party’s commitment to democratic principles and individual freedom and choice.

Politics and economics are two areas difficult to differentiate. Between 1949 and 1978 China was a socialist country with a planned economy. The Chinese people were called upon to march towards a communist utopia, where everyone should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her need—that is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Socialist economic policies did not aid China. By the year of my birth in 1962, China had wiped out private ownership in an effort to build a socialist economy. A horrific famine had just passed with the death of millions of people. In those years, everyone was equal but everyone was poor. The most spectacular present that I received for my 10th birthday was two eggs for breakfast.

By 1978 the Chinese economy was on the verge of collapse. It was at that critical moment that the Chinese Government started economic reforms, salvaging the economy just in time. A market economy was introduced. Entrepreneurship was encouraged. The irrational pursuit of income equality was abolished. A popular official slogan at the time was “Shui xian fu, shui guang rong”, meaning “It is glorious to become rich before others”.

We are all aware of China’s enormous economic growth since that pivotal year of 1978. China has risen to become the second-largest economy in the world. The Chinese Government has successfully lifted millions of people out of poverty. Reflecting on the way in which China has achieved its positive change and development gives me a firm belief that the policies of the National Party are in the best interests of New Zealand. We give priority to economic growth. And to achieve this growth we emphasise the importance of personal responsibility, competitive enterprise, and reward for achievement. These are all values shared by the Chinese community and many other New Zealanders.

The Chinese were the third racial group to settle in New Zealand, after the Māori and European. Most of them came as goldminers in the second half of the 19th century. Historian Michael King said: “Once in New Zealand, the Chinese who persisted despite the poll tax and considerable prejudice proved themselves to be law-abiding and hard-working citizens.” We should not undervalue the contributions of the Chinese community to New Zealand. Not only has the Chinese community contributed economically, it has also enriched the lives of all New Zealanders through the celebration of Chinese arts, cuisine, and traditions. Every year about 200,000 people from different ethnic communities come to the Chinese Lantern Festival in Auckland as part of the Chinese New Year celebrations.

To the Chinese, strong work ethics coupled with good education are the two key elements to success. Surveys show that Chinese immigrants are often well educated, and it is no secret that Chinese children generally do well at school. The New Zealand Herald noted in April last year that “If education is our future, Chinese minds will be prominent in shaping New Zealand’s destiny.” This again reinforces the Chinese community’s vital role in the future development of our country.

The Chinese community’s value in education echoes that of the National Party. We are committed to offering the best education to all New Zealanders, and we believe education provides the ability for all to move forward.

Despite the successes of the Chinese in New Zealand, all new immigrants need time to adapt to a new country. Considering their Eastern cultural background, it may be more challenging for Chinese immigrants to adapt to our mainly Western society. It is in the best interests of all of us to give them more support in this respect. On the other hand, all immigrants should themselves try to integrate. Chinese immigrants are no exception. Members of the Chinese community should not only learn the languages and cultures of mainstream society but also be willing to sacrifice for the country.

It is pleasing to note that the global trend among overseas Chinese is to move away from luoye guigen, “fallen leaves return to the roots”, but towards luodi shenggen, “to grow roots where they land”. The mentality of sojournism is no longer dominant. Many Chinese, including my family, gave up their Chinese citizenship and proudly became New Zealand citizens. We are Kiwis, although made in China.

The Chinese immigrants do have a strong desire for recognition and integration, which is why they have been actively involved in philanthropy and politics. They have been generous in their donations to the victims of the Christchurch earthquake. There was also a record number of Chinese candidates in the most recent general election.

I feel truly honoured to be a National Party representative of the Chinese community. I hope to see more Chinese in Parliament, as the community is still under-represented. The rise of China has given New Zealand an ideal opportunity. China is now our second-largest trading partner. Our trade with East Asia, especially China, played a crucial role in our effort to deal with the global financial crisis in recent years. In this respect, Chinese residents’ connection with China is a great asset to New Zealand. The connection has generated many economic opportunities, and there is still a great potential.

As a Chinese immigrant, I will act as a bridge between the Chinese community and our mainstream society. I will also endeavour to contribute to the strengthening of New Zealand’s relations with China. What is more, my background and experiences render me capable of making contributions in many other areas, be it education, foreign affairs, ethnic affairs, or health.

To conclude, the values held by me and many Chinese New Zealanders are parallel to those of the National Party and other New Zealanders. These include equal citizenship and equal opportunity, individual freedom and choice, personal responsibility, and reward for achievement. As a father of two, I see it as my responsibility to provide a safe and prosperous environment for my children to grow up in. With the National Party, I look forward to a brighter future. Thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: My colleagues, can I congratulate all the members who have made maiden speeches to the House in this 50th Parliament. I think we have heard some outstanding maiden speeches, not just today but from all parties, and I congratulate all the new members of this 50th Parliament for the quality of those maiden speeches.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill

First Readings

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I ask the leave of the House to extend my time to 15 minutes. I actually have cognate bills here with two iwi involved.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, the honourable Minister will know that the House is the master of its own destiny. The Minister seeks leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The honourable Minister has 15 minutes. Pita, the bell will go with 5 minutes remaining, so that you know.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Tēnā koe. I move, That the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bills be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration. Nā reira ki ngā iwi, koutou kua hara mai nei ki tēnei Whare Paremata i tēnei pō, nau mai, hara mai rā. Hara mai rā koutou. Kua roa rawa koutou e kawe i tēnei kaupapa, ā, engari i tēnei pō, he tīmatanga pea o te whakamutunga. Nā reira, hara mai, hara mai rā. Hoki atu ngā mahara ki a rātou kāre i konei i tēnei wā. Rātou i tīmata ai i tēnei hīkoi, e kawe nei i tēnei kaupapa, kua ngaro atu me ngā mate o te rā. Nā reira, rātou ki a rātou, okioki pai. Engari ko koutou nei, kua tae mai ki te tautoko i tēnei āhuatanga, arā, te kaupapa e whakahuihuitia tātou, nau mai, whakapiri mai koutou.

[So to you, the tribes who have arrived here at this Parliament House tonight, welcome, welcome here. Welcome indeed, to you collectively. You have carried this matter for a very long time, but tonight is maybe the beginning of the end. Welcome, welcome here. The thoughts go back to those who are no longer here at this point in time. They started this journey and carried this matter, and have passed away since with the deaths of the day. So, allow them to be there among their own, rest well. But to you who have arrived here to support this situation and the reason why we have assembled here, welcome, draw closer.]

First, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the representatives of Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino who have joined us today for this highly significant occasion. This is an important day for Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino, where we remember and acknowledge their historical Treaty grievances but also look forward and celebrate with optimism their future and the opportunities that will follow this settlement. The first reading of these two bills today is a step towards the completion of a journey that has taken many years for both iwi.

Ngai Tāmanuhiri is an iwi based in the Gisborne region, and was represented in negotiations by the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Whānui Trust. The whakatauākī “Mai i Paritu, ki Kōpututea.” describes the area in which Ngai Tāmanuhiri hold mana whenua. Ngai Tāmanuhiri has five principle hapū: Ngāti Rangiwaho, Ngāti Rangiwaho Matua, Ngāi Tāwehi, Ngāti Kahutia, and Ngāti Rangitauwhiwhia. Nolan Raihānia, tō tātou kaumātua i tēnei pō, provided the whakatauākī for the deed of settlement, and I would now like to quote it, as it signifies the unity and strength of Ngai Tāmanuhiri as an iwi: “Ko te mana o te tangata kei ōna uri.”—tēnā koe kai raro.

Ngāti Mākino is an iwi from the Bay of Plenty region and was represented in Treaty settlement negotiations by the Ngāti Mākino Heritage Trust. Ngāti Mākino is also a member of the Te Arawa confederation of tribes. Ngāti Mākino hails from the area between the coast and the lakes Rotoehu, Rotoiti, and Rotomā. It should also be noted that Ngāti Mākino have close whakapapa connections to Waitaha as they descend from Waitaha-ā-Hei. Ngāti Mākino historically operated as an independent entity, but, because of their close whakapapa connections, were able to band together with other iwi when confronted by external threats, or for common interests.

The grievances and Treaty settlement negotiations of Ngai Tāmanuhiri. Twenty years ago, in 1992, Ngai Tāmanuhiri first began their journey. Eric John Tūpai Ruru, Tūtekawa Wyllie, and Peter Gordon lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki, Ngai Tāmanuhiri, and Rongowhakaata, referred to as Wai 283. I wish to acknowledge those who began this journey but are no longer with us. Moe mai rā e ngā rangatira, moe mai rā. In the Ngai Tāmanuhiri settlement, the Crown acknowledges a number of serious Treaty breaches. In 1865 Crown forces laid siege to the defensive pā at Waerenga-a-hika, where many Tūranga Māori were killed and a number of Tūranga Māori were imprisoned and transported to the Chatham Islands without trial or conviction. In 1868 Ngai Tāmanuhiri were pressured to cede all their land to the Crown. This cession was made under duress, as the Crown had threatened to remove all its protection unless the entire district was ceded. The Crown eventually returned land to Ngai Tāmanuhiri, but made arrangements that led to its ownership being held by individuals rather than the tribal collective, making it more susceptible to alienation and fragmentation. These and other breaches have left Ngai Tāmanuhiri without sufficient land to meet their present and future needs.

I want to now highlight the Crown apology contained in the deed of settlement and, subsequently, this Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. The apology is significant, as it takes a step towards healing the hurt caused by the Treaty breaches. Negotiations between Ngai Tāmanuhiri and the Crown took place from 2007 through to 2011. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the trustees and the negotiators in getting Ngai Tāmanuhiri to where we are today. Nā reira, tēnā koutou. In 2008 Ngai Tāmanuhiri signed an agreement in principle as part of the Tūranga collective. Following the collective separating in 2009, Ngai Tāmanuhiri entered into negotiations with the Crown for their deed of settlement and initialled that deed in December 2010.

In a dawn ceremony on 5 March 2011 at Muriwai Beach, Ngai Tāmanuhiri and the Crown signed the first of the documents that make up the deed of settlement. The ceremony reflected the significance of Te Kurī a Paoa, also known as Young Nicks Head, to Ngai Tāmanuhiri. The deed of settlement is a full and final settlement for all the historical Treaty claims of Ngai Tāmanuhiri.

Ngāti Mākino’s grievances and Treaty settlement negotiations. According to Ngāti Mākino, Kāwana Te Kirikau is the person who first initiated the Ngāti Mākino claim, in 1992. Named claimants include Te Ariki Mōrehu, Neville Nēpia, Peretini Nuku Tawa, and Awhi Awhimate. In 1995 the claims of Ngāti Mākino were presented at the Waitangi Tribunal inquiry into the Eastern Bay of Plenty district. This has been a long journey for Ngāti Mākino, and I would like again to acknowledge those who began this journey but are no longer with us here today. Nā reira, rātou ki a rātou, moe mai.

When the war broke out in the Waikato region, iwi within the Bay of Plenty felt the tension. The people of Ngāti Mākino were split between supporting the Crown, taking a stance of armed neutrality, or supporting the Kīngitanga. Although some of their land was confiscated by the Crown in retaliation for certain murders committed in the Bay of Plenty, Ngāti Mākino played no part in those killings. Through the early 1900s the Crown used a number of pieces of legislation to alienate and acquire virtually all of Ngāti Mākino’s land. This settlement with Ngāti Mākino is a significant step in working to put right the losses Ngāti Mākino suffered.

Ngāti Mākino has had a long journey though negotiations with the Crown. Terms of negotiation were reached in 1998. However, with the change of Government, negotiations were suspended. The Waitangi Tribunal found in 2004, and again in 2005, that Ngāti Mākino had suffered prejudice as a result of the Crown’s delay in negotiating with them. In 2008 the Crown reconfirmed the mandate of the Ngāti Mākino Heritage Trust. In April 2008, together with Waitaha, joint terms of negotiation were entered into, and an agreement in principle was reached in November 2008. Then in December 2008, after a period of intense negotiations, Ngāti Mākino and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement. An overwhelming majority of Ngāti Mākino members who voted in the ratification process expressed support for the deed of settlement and the proposed post-settlement governance arrangements. On 2 April 2011 at Ōtamarākau, Ngāti Mākino and the Crown signed a deed of settlement.

I turn to the key features of the legislation. I want now to highlight the key features of the deeds of settlement, and the redress terms that will be transferred by these bills. Perhaps the most significant item of redress for Ngai Tāmanuhiri is the return of Te Kurī a Paoa. Te Kurī a Paoa is a significant landmark for the people of Ngai Tāmanuhiri. Te Kurī a Paoa will be vested as a national historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. I am confident this vesting will ensure that public interest is provided for, while recognising the special relationship Ngai Tāmanuhiri has with Te Kurī a Paoa.

The settlement provides for the establishment of a central leadership group, and a local leadership body to provide a forum for Ngai Tāmanuhiri, along with other Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa iwi, to engage with central government departments and ensure that their implementing of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is a coordinated effort with the Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwi region. The local leadership body will work with the local council to contribute to the sustainable management of the resources within that region. These redress items provide Ngai Tāmanuhiri with a valuable opportunity to engage with central and local government on a range of issues.

Ngai Tāmanuhiri will receive a quantum total of $11.07 million, which takes into account the nature of the historical Treaty breaches and the size of the iwi. This is to be provided in three parts: an on-account payment, which was made after the signing of the deed of settlement; transfer of Ngai Tāmanuhiri interest in Wharerata Forest; and a financial sum. Ngai Tāmanuhiri will also receive a number of commercial properties that may assist Ngai Tāmanuhiri develop its commercial footing, and contribute to the long-term financial success of Ngai Tāmanuhiri.

I come now to the key redress items contained in Ngāti Mākino’s settlement. The area extending from Lake Rotoehu out to sea is extremely significant to Ngāti Mākino, as those lands provided them with their food and their medicine. In recognition of these associations, the settlement includes statutory acknowledgments over parts of Lake Rotomā and Lake Rotoiti. Part of Lake Rotomā Scenic Reserve will be subject to a whenua rāhui, which will allow for the protection of the reserve. A number of culturally significant properties are also being returned to Ngāti Mākino. These include the Rākau ō Kauwae Hapa site, Ngā Pōrōtai-o-Waitaha-a-Hei, Lake Rotoehu Scenic Reserve, and the balance of the Matawhāura site. Another significant item of redress included in the settlement is a marae development fund. This fund will assist Ngāti Mākino to restore and revitalise six marae in the rohe. Ngāti Mākino will receive a financial quantum of $6.7 million, made up of a financial payment and licensed land being transferred to the iwi. It takes into account the extent of Ngāti Mākino’s losses and the size of the iwi. Ngāti Mākino will also receive a financial settlement of $3.1 million.

I am confident that both bills will settle the historical Treaty claims of Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino in a fair and final manner. Although it is not possible to provide full restitution to Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino for their losses, the settlement redress provided for in these bills seeks to recognise the seriousness of their grievances, and to build a positive foundation for future generations. I consider that the bills should therefore proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend these bills to the House. Tēnā koe.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe. Ka nui aku mihi ki a koe, te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare. E mihi kau ana ki tō tātau Minita Māori me rātau ngā kanohi Māori i tērā taha. Nā te pai e kite atu wētahi o ngā uri o ngā iwi e tae ake ki konei. Nō reira, ki a koutou ngā mea pakeke o Mākino e mihi kau ana. Nau mai, hara mai. Hara mai ki te wāhi nei taupatupatu kōrero mō ngā āhua katoa i roto i a koutou me ērā hoki o konei, te kaha rawa te tae mai. E te Pāpā e Noel, i a koe hoki e Temple koutou katoa ngā mea pakeke, e mihi kau ana. Nau mai rā, hara mai, hara mai ki te wāhi nei. E pai ana ki te kite atu i te kaha rawa i roto i a koutou ahakoa te roaroa o te tae ake ki konei, kua tae mai koutou.

Te nui o ngā tangihanga i te kāinga, ko Uncle Noel tērā ka hinga ki raro. Mihi atu ki a rātau o hoa o te Rua Tekau Mā Waru, ki a Uncle Turi rāua ko te Pāpā, matua Hēnare. Ko koe tēneki nei e tū kaha ana, e mau poutokomanawa mō tātau katoa, nō reira, mihi kau ana. Tēnā tātau. E rongo atu au e tautokotia atu ngā kōrero o tō tātau Minita a Pita. Ka mihi atu hoki ki te tangata rā a Christopher Finlayson mō tōna kaha, tērā Minita. He roaroa atu te wā kia tae ake ai ki konei, kia oti pai ai tēnei, nā te mea, i tīmata atu i roto i a rātau te mōhiotanga, ā, nā te mamae ki wēnei kerēme, ka rere atu te nuinga o ngā mea pakeke. Kāre e ora rātau hei kite te otinga. Nō reira, tērā anō te mea i roto i a tātau, e tautokotia atu tō tātau Rōpū Reipa, ā, te oti pai ai tēnei, nā te mea, e pīrangi atu tātau kia tere te haere. Kāre au mō te noho nohinohi e kore e tae atu i te otinga o tēnei tau. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a rātau, ki a tātau katoa.

[Thank you. I appreciate you greatly, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and acknowledge our Minister of Māori Affairs, and Māori members on that side of the House. It is so nice to see relatives of the tribes here. So to you, the elderly ones of Ngāti Mākino, I acknowledge you. Welcome, welcome, and welcome to this place. Welcome to this place where all manner of things among you that took a lot of effort to get here are debated, including the ones from here. Welcome to you, Uncle Noel, Uncle Temple, and all of you, the elderly ones, I salute you. Welcome, welcome, and welcome to this place. It is pleasing to see the efforts made by you, and despite the length of time involved to get here you have made it.

There have been many funerals at home. Uncle Noel’s was one. I pay a tribute to your friends of the 28th Māori Battalion, to Uncle Turi and Uncle Hēnare. You have stood strongly as the pillar for all of us, so I acknowledge you. Congratulations to us. I note that the statements of our Minister the Hon Dr Pita Sharples were endorsed. I endorse the Hon Christopher Finlayson’s efforts, as well. It has taken a long time for the legislation to arrive here and be completed. Initially the understanding came from within the tribes, but because of the hurt created through these claims, many of the elder ones passed away and will not see it completed. So the feeling among us, our Labour Party, is that we endorse the settlement of this legislation and want it done as swiftly as possible. I do not want to sit around and not have this matter settled this year. So I acknowledge them, and all of us.]

I want to reiterate and support what Minister Sharples has said and acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. The Labour Party will certainly be supporting these bills—the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill—moving swiftly, I hope, through to a positive end.

In relation to the two bills we are talking about now the Minister of Māori Affairs has covered most of the important points. I do want to mention Te Ariki Mōrehu, Te Hīrata Sykes, Awhimate Awhimate, and many others—and when you name people, you leave people out—for the effort that has been put in. They started negotiations with Waitaha at a single table, then moved on to progress their own interests as negotiators in their own right.

I suppose one of the big issues is the balance of the Rotoehu Forest and accumulated rentals that have been returned to them, and it needs to be recognised alongside all of the other matters that are in there that were named by the Minister. The scenic reserves redress is of significant importance to Ngāti Mākino. It is innovative. It is redress that was negotiated to give Ngāti Mākino certain decision-making rights in consultation with the Department of Conservation over scenic reserves in the area. I am not too sure who the Minister of Conservation is any more, but I am certain Minister Sharples and Minister Finlayson shudder in fear now that the Māori advisers that they had there have lost their jobs. So I hope that it is reconsidered in these settlements, because they will need a whole lot of assistance with that.

The bill sets out the cultural redress to Ngāti Mākino, including the Crown’s acknowledgment of the cultural significance of certain statutory areas for them and the issuing of protocols by appropriate responsible Ministers, and that is certainly something to be supported. They have been through a very, very hard time. The Moutoroi Pā site is vested in fee simple in the trustees, and that comes out in Subpart 8 in Part 2. The commercial redress is something that is there, and I hope between now and the end that some of that may be stretched with the school at Ōtamarākau, which is to be transferred to the trustees.

The bill also makes provision in relation to deferred selection properties and licensed and unlicensed Crown forest lands. It is well known that Ngāti Mākino have had their tensions, and they certainly would like to be recognised in the sense of any further deals relevant to forestry. I would plead with the Minister to ensure that that effort is strong in relation to supporting them in finalising their settlement, and I want to wish them well.

Ngai Tāmanuhiri is from the great land of Tai Rāwhiti, and there are people who have emblazoned this start in the Tai Rāwhiti region, in the sense of moving to settlement, which is certainly a first for the region, and they need to be commended for that. Along with a whole lot of other people, I do want to mention Dawn Pōmana, Mel Tarsau, Hope Tūpara, young Reuben Wiki, who passed on, Heather Smith, Warren Pōhatū, and a range of others, and the pakeke like Uncle Noel and Uncle Temple and those ones.

The agreement in principle was signed a long time ago by us, and that is why we tend to get a bit agitated at the length of time, Minister, and hopefully we can speed these up. The transfer of Te Kurī a Paoa historic reserve / Young Nicks Head is very significant to them, and I was privileged to be there with them when we flew up in the helicopter. I was going to say I walked, but I know that some of them up the top there know that I went up in the helicopter. But it was a great day, and it signalled the start of trying to mend those issues that have been there for a long period of time. The transfer of part of Wharerata Forest and accumulated rentals is important, and hopefully the interest on those rentals is paid and not forgotten. That is something that would really assist those people.

The bill provides for the establishment of a central leadership group, and I think this is the very innovative thing about Ngai Tāmanuhiri. I think it is a lesson for going forward, in the sense of how other iwi could consider matters. I know that Ngāti Parawera Ruanui has done the same thing. The settlement prepares for the establishment of a central leadership group, with representatives from Ngai Tāmanuhiri and the other iwi to engage with central government. I hope that those departments, and Te Puni Kōkiri and those ones, are not washed away in this big speech next week, and that they are around to aid and abet this great part of the settlement, Minister.

The other interesting fact is that the bill also provides for the establishment of a local leadership group with members appointed by Ngai Tāmanuhiri and other Tūranga group iwi and the Gisborne District Council to enhance Tūranga iwi engagement with the local council. That is very important, and I hope Ngai Tāmanuhiri puts at the top of the list the exorbitant rates on Māori land, and that that is there. It is good, and it would be encouraging to feel that—

Hon Tau Henare: What did you do?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Tau Henare’s relations are there; he would agree with me on that. But it would be great. What we did do is we made sure that we started it, and we are here encouraging the Government to finalise it. But I think those two aspects are very, very important. It is how we build them, Minister, and make them real that is important.

Of course, the paepae that has been organised on the west coast in Taranaki has not been working very well. Those ministries have not played ball, and this is high-level stuff. You know, there is a lot of need for those Government agencies to ensure that Ngai Tāmanuhiri get what is certainly theirs.

We support this bill, and we certainly look forward to working in harmony and making sure that we get there. Ngai Tāmanuhiri certainly have been a trailblazer in the Tai Rāwhiti, in getting off the ranks—the first cab off the rank—to try to get things done, and they need to be commended for it. Nō reira, tēnā koutou kua rewa taku tū, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou katoa, me tātou anō hoki nei ngā kanohi Māori, tēnā koutou.

[So greetings to you, collectively. My time has expired, and I do acknowledge you all, as well, the Māori members, greetings.]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Can I begin by thanking all members of the House for their help in progressing this legislation. I particularly acknowledge the advice and the guidance that I received from the previous speaker, Mr Horomia, and also Mr Jones. It is always great to be out on the road, signing these deeds of settlement with Mr Horomia. They are occasions when you put aside party politics, because we are all interested in doing the right thing for iwi.

I also want to welcome those members of the iwi who have made their journey to Parliament for this very happy occasion. Dr Sharples has gone through the details of the bills, the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, in some considerable detail, and I do not intend to repeat that material in my speech. But I do want to say that engagement in settlement negotiations, in my experience of a little over 3 years, requires a tremendous amount of commitment and courage for those involved. It involves difficult trade-offs, both professionally and personally. Just the other day I heard of one negotiator for an iwi who had spent his redundancy working for his iwi to get to the stage where a deed of settlement could be signed. So with that in mind, I acknowledge the negotiation teams of both iwi, those who have made these Treaty settlements possible because of their dedication, their hard work, and the leadership of their governance entities. I pay tribute to the leadership, the pragmatism, and the hard work of both negotiation teams. It is through the diligent labour of these people that we are able to have this occasion here tonight.

It would be inappropriate to single out individuals, but I have to single out that wonderful New Zealander Nolan Raihānia of the C Company of Māori Battalion. As he says, he is ubiquitous. He will be sitting next to Api Mahuika in about an hour for the second reading of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. It is great to see you in the Chamber tonight, and it is great to place on record your tremendous contribution, both to your iwi and to New Zealand throughout the course of your lifetime.

In reaching this milestone it is important to acknowledge that full compensation to Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino for their losses is simply not possible. Through entering deeds of settlement with the Crown, both iwi have offered to forgo full compensation in order to contribute to the future development of New Zealand, and I want to thank them for that act of generosity. The introduction of these bills will begin the last stage of the settlement process for both iwi. Both iwi have, as Mr Horomia said, waited a very, very long time for this day, and they can be very proud of what they have achieved. Through this legislation a platform has been set for a new relationship between Ngai Tāmanuhiri, Ngāti Mākino, and the Crown—a relationship that I certainly hope will be based for the future on mutual trust, cooperation, and a respect for the Treaty.

This contribution is necessarily short; I have offered to give Dr Sharples the chance to set out the full detail. He is a valued colleague and friend, and I am working closely with him now in the Māori Affairs portfolio, and I will have my longer speech at the third reading stage. But I do emphasise that this is a bipartisan exercise. I do emphasise that it is something all New Zealanders should be very proud of. The Crown cannot brush under the carpet longstanding and legitimate grievances of the iwi of this country, and it is going to seek to respond appropriately to well-founded claims in a manner designed to achieve a better New Zealand for all of us.

So thank you once again to those who have contributed so much to this great day. Thank you for coming to Wellington. I very much look forward to, as Mr Horomia said, the harmonious conduct of these bills in the Māori Affairs Committee. With the great Tau Henare as chair, it could only be harmonious, and I am sure that in double-quick time the bills will be back to the House for the remaining stages.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr. Assistant Speaker Robertson. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou ngā whānau o Ngai Tāmanuhiri, o Ngāti Mākino.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. To the authorities, voices, and many leaders, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all. Greetings to you, the families of Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino.]

This is my privilege. This is the first opportunity I have had to address the House as the member of Parliament for Manurewa, so I want to take the opportunity to thank the people of Manurewa for electing me as their representative. In saying that, I want to acknowledge how honoured I am to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. I want to congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, on your new role as president of Parliamentarians for Global Action, as well as on your Assistant Speaker role. I want to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and the Hon Pita Sharples as the Minister of Māori Affairs. I want to acknowledge the work of Tau Henare as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, with the Hon Parekura Horomia as his deputy. I want to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta as a previous member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and I also want to acknowledge my colleague Rino Tirikatene and congratulate him on his election as the MP for Te Tai Tonga. I want to acknowledge Brendan Horan here in the House as a New Zealand First member and a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and also Louise Upston, who is a member of the Māori Affairs Committee.

Previous speakers have outlined the deed of settlement that Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino are to receive, and actually what I want to say is that the process that we are engaged in now is actually a rubber-stamp of the process that the iwi have been through. It is not for us to add anything to what they have negotiated with the Crown, but what I do want to say is that regardless of the differing views on the settlement process, which we must acknowledge is fundamentally about the property rights of Māori, it is these Treaty settlement bills coming before this House that formalise the process and offer redress for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, which is the founding document of our country and which has been agreed to by iwi and hapū after a process of historical reconciliation and engagement with the Crown.

The Treaty settlement process in itself, and this resulting legislation that we are debating tonight in the first reading, is one of the few means by which Māori are given legal recognition, as New Zealand’s indigenous people, as the first sovereign and the party to a contract, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which gave rise to the establishment of the expression of our democracy in this House that we are in tonight. This Treaty settlement context is also the process that confirms the unique status that Māori have in Aotearoa New Zealand as New Zealand’s first, or original, peoples. And I want to make this point: the Treaty settlement process highlights that although immigrant groups have heritage identities to other countries, other cultures, and other languages, iwi and hapū have their identities embedded in their awa, their moana, their maunga, their tikanga, their reo, and their kawa, which can come only from here in Aotearoa New Zealand. And it is this process that recognises the established right of Māori as New Zealand’s indigenous peoples, which was strengthened by the Treaty of Waitangi. But what I want to say is that we have a status regardless of the Treaty. That status needs to be reinforced in the legislation, and that is something that I am committed to.

So, for me, these bills are part of the path of endorsing the status of Māori as indigenous people, and of endorsing our rights that come from that status. So endorsing Māori rights to property is one of the important steps in recognising and celebrating Māori status as New Zealand’s indigenous peoples, and these Treaty settlements for Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino—and others who will be in the Whare later tonight—are essentially about recognition of them in their own right, and about compensating them for the property rights that they either lost or had taken from them.

I want to draw the distinction between land, which actually has some legal parameters to it, and other property that has been subsequently commodified. And I particularly want to talk about water. There is no legal status for ownership of water, and that is why, for me, the proposed removal of section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act across any portion of our State asset where Māori interests are yet to be determined, in itself, will be a new Treaty breach.

My contribution tonight is really about acknowledging the road that iwi have gone down to get here, and for me it has been like climbing Mount Everest. The tenacity and the fights of our whānau to get to a deed of settlement have been long fought, and I think in the future our role is to ensure that those generations that come after us do not have to climb high mountains. The path should be pretty straight, and it should be easy for the next generation of Ngāti Mākino and Ngai Tāmanuhiri to be able to exercise their right as tangata whenua—as mana whenua of this country.

I want to thank Parekura for the opportunity to speak. I have not been involved in Treaty settlements yet. I am going to be on the road with Tau in the future—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must use the member’s full name.

LOUISA WALL: The Hon Tau Henare—but I want to acknowledge the journey that the iwi have made to be here tonight. I want to honour this deed of settlement that they have negotiated with the Crown. I am happy to be part of a process in the future that will ensure that they can sign this deed of settlement and get on with exercising their right of rangatiratanga over their lands. Kia ora.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr. Assistant Speaker Robertson. Kei te mihi nui ki a koutou. Kei te mihi nui ki ngā rangatira, ngā kuia o Ngāti Mākino, o Ngai Tāmanuhiri. Haere mai ki tēnei Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I extend a huge greeting to all, as well as leaders and the elderly womenfolk of Ngāti Mākino and Ngai Tāmanuhiri. Welcome to this House.]

Before speaking on the substance of these bills, the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill, I would like to acknowledge the process that we are using tonight. We are hearing these bills in cognate, which is not rare but nor is it a common occurrence. I think it is important to acknowledge that this is a practical measure, agreed to by all parties in the House. The purpose of reading these bills together is to advance their progress through the House as swiftly as can be done.

It is important that we do this quickly. The bills are responding to claims that are some two decades old and, of course, refer to events of a century and a half or more ago. And I think it is important to note that hearing these bills in one reading in no way diminishes the importance of each as a stand-alone bill; to the contrary, it is a reflection of the importance that this House puts on getting these matters resolved to the satisfaction of those who are most directly affected by them.

We, the Green Party, will be supporting these bills through the House, as is our wont with settlement bills. We do so, as ever, while acknowledging also the imperfections of these bills. They can never be all that we would wish them to be, nor inevitably can they—and they do not—compensate in total for all that has been lost over many generations. They cannot restore the material wealth, the land, and the well-being that were lost over many generations, and they certainly cannot compensate in a full and complete way for the personal suffering and loss that have been the hallmark of so many Māori people since the signing of the Treaty, in fact.

I think that reflects on a genuine generosity of spirit of Māori—and specifically of these iwi and hapū represented here tonight—that they are willing to accept less than could fairly be claimed in order to move on, to re-establish a more positive relationship between the Crown and Māori, and, critically, to provide an economic base so that iwi and hapū can dictate their own future and make their own way in the world as they did prior to these unfortunate events, which took away from them, in many cases, the ability to make their own way economically, socially, culturally, and in every other way.

I would like particularly to reflect on the clauses in the two bills that are the Crown’s acknowledgments and the Crown’s apologies to the affected iwi and hapū: clause 6 in the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill and clauses 7 and 8 of the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. I think often that casual observers of these processes perhaps underestimate the value of the Crown’s apologies and acknowledgments of wrongdoing over many years. That is not to underestimate the more practical tangible compensation that is offered, but it is important that people recognise that having the mana restored as it ought to be, the Crown recognising its own shortcomings and wrongdoing, does resonate as an incredibly significant and important part of these bills. It reflects on and give us a place to begin rebuilding, as I said, the 172-year-old relationship.

Those who denigrate or those who are simply ignorant of some of the history of this country and the history that underlies these settlement bills would do well, I think, to inform themselves. One of the inherent values of these bills is that they give us some extraordinary reference points. They record the history of these events in a way that enables people to read and to better understand why we are moving through these. Having celebrated Waitangi Day just a week or two ago, inevitably that time of year brings out those who would suggest that Māori should get over it, or those who in a more benign way even might suggest that we leave the past in the past. I think they need to read that history, and recognise that it is in some cases only two or three generations ago—and, in fact, even existing generations continue to suffer from wrongdoings—and it is an important part of our history.

So I do think, as I say, that the parts of these bills are worth reading and recording, and I would like to quote briefly from one or two of them. For example, in clause 6 of the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill the Crown acknowledges “that the people of Ngāti Mākino have long sought redress for their grievances, and that the Crown’s withdrawal from earlier negotiations … has had a detrimental effect on Ngāti Mākino.” There is acknowledgment that Ngāti Mākino suffered loss of life at the hands of Crown forces, and that “confiscation of land in the eastern Bay of Plenty … affected all Ngāti Mākino, even those who had not been in conflict with the Crown;” at this time. It refers to its effects as “unjust, indiscriminate, and a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” in the confiscation of that land. It is acknowledged that “Ngāti Mākino’s physical, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing was compromised by the loss of their land and that this suffering and hardship has continued to the present day;”.

These are strong words. This is a very powerful and open acknowledgment of wrong that was done, and it is appropriate that these words are written and spoken. I do, as I say, encourage people to familiarise themselves not only with these bills but with the increasing number of bills, and indeed Acts, where the Crown’s position, the Crown’s liability, and its admission of liability are finally being recorded. Similarly, in the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill the Crown’s apology refers to the Crown’s “many failures to respect Ngai Tāmanuhiri rangatiratanga and to protect Ngai Tāmanuhiri from being left virtually landless and economically marginalised.”

Many Māori, and those who understand better, are constantly irritated and offended by claims that Māori somehow are unable to see to their own economic and social well-being. Clearly much of the disadvantage suffered by Māori in the present day is a direct result, a direct outcome, of the marginalisation, of the taking away of the economic base that Māori depended on and indeed did very well on. We know the history even of the 1860s, when the New Zealand economy was a Māori economy, and a very successful economy at that. It is the events that are recorded in these bills that took away that base, and it is a pleasure to be part of the process—albeit a very, very minor part—of restoration of that economic base, as well as the mana that is owed.

There is much that can be said, and will indeed be said at later readings, about this. I would simply finally like to pass on the greetings and good wishes, in particular to Ngai Tāmanuhiri, of my colleague and fellow MP Catherine Delahunty, who was engaged quite closely—at the front line, one might say—in the fights over a number of years to restore Te Kurī o Paoa to its rightful owner, to restore access and the mana of that significant place, significant both to Māori and to Pākehā: Young Nicks Head, Te Kurī o Paoa. She sends her regards, and her direct engagement will be referred to in a later speech. So finally, as I began, I commend these bills. We will offer our support for them and look forward to their swift resolution. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, kia ora tātau e te Whare. Hai wāwāhi i te āhuatanga o taku kōrero, me mihi rā ki a koutou kei runga ake nei. Tēnā koutou i haramai i tawhiti. Ko ētahi o koutou i tae mai i te ata nei ki te hui i karangahia mai ai e te Hōnore Hēkia Parata mō te take, ko te mātauranga. Hoi anō i tēnei pō he take anō rā. Nō reira ko tāku noa ake he whaiwhai haere i ngā mihi a te Minita mō ngā take Māori ki tēnā, ki tēnā o koutou. Kaua ko Ngāti Mākino i tōna kotahi, kaua ko Ngai Tāmanuhiri i tōna kotahi engari me kī, koutou kua haramai i te pō nei ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa. Haramai me ngā mate o te wā, e kōrerohia ake nei. Tūmatauenga, haramai, e koro. Haramai ki roto i ngā pakitara o te Whare nei, arā anō ngā kōrero. Arā anō ngā kōrero mō ngā pakanga. Nō reira, ko koe tēnei kua tatū mai. Haere mai, haere mai, huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

E kore au e whakatuarua i ngā kōrero a te Minita. Kua puta kē i a ia ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ngā take e pā ana ki a koutou o Ngai Tāmanuhiri ka mutu ki a koutou o Ngāti Mākino. He mataku nōku kei kī mai wētahi, ē, ka whakapau te Māori nei i te nuinga o tana kōrero ki runga i a ia ki a Te Arawa, ki a Ngāti Mākino. Engari, tērā tērā kōrero. Ko tāku noa ake he kōrero whānui, he kōrero whānui i te mea, arā kua rongo koutou i ngā kōrero kua puta i te pō nei. E kore au e kōrero whakapapa. Kāre i te tika kia kōrero a Te Arawa mō ngā whakapapa o Ngai Tāmanuhiri. Waiho tērā ki a koutou. Ko te taha ki a au ki a Te Arawa, kei konei taku pāpā a Te Ariki, māna tērā e kōrero.

Engari ko tāku kē ki a tātau i te pō nei, he kōrero whānui mō tēnei o ngā take. Arā anō ngā, me kī, ngā ōritenga o ngā momo pire pēnei i ēnei nā. Tuatahi, i roto i ngā pire nei, ka tuku whakapāhā te Karauna. Ka pai, ka pai. Me pērā ka tika, mō ngā tini hē, whakapōreareatanga, tūkinotanga ki tēnā iwi, ki tēnā iwi, ki tēnā hapū, ki tēnā hapū i ngā tau e hia kē nei kua hipa. Me tuku whakapāhā ka tika. Tuarua, he aha te take o ngā raruraru, o ngā kerēme e korerohia ake nei? Ko te whenua te take. Ko te whenua te take, i murua te whenua, nā te raupatu tērā momo āhuatanga nā te ture, taihoa ake nei ka hoki mai ki tērā. Ko te take tuatoru ki a au, ko te kore mōhio o te nuinga o te motu ki ngā kōrero, ki ngā hītori kei roto i ngā pire e huna ana. Kāore anō te nuinga o ngā kōrero o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi, kia puta ki te motu. Hā, ka tū mai te ringa o te Māori ki te kī atu, anei tāku, i raro i te āhuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi, tē aro mai a wētahi. Nā te aha? Nā te kore mōhio. Nō reira, mēnā he painga o roto i ēnei momo pire, koirā ki a au te painga. He tuku i te mātauranga, ngā kōrero, i pā atu ki a Ngāti Mākino, ki a Ngai Tāmanuhiri, ki ngā iwi katoa kua heri mai ai i ō rātau take ki mua i te aro o te Whare Pāremata.

Kāti, me hoki rā anō ki te tīmatanga mai o ngā kōrero. E ai ki tāku e kite nei, me tīmata ki a koutou Ngai Tāmanuhiri, mō te wā poto. E ai ki tāku e kite nei, i mua o te tau 1865, i a Ngai Tāmanuhiri te mana i runga i te whenua i a ia i tērā wā. Nā, e ai ki tāku e kite nei, i āhua noho taiapa koutou ki ngā pakanga i Te Tai Rāwhiti i tērā tau. Kāre koutou i toro atu te ringa, heri atu te patu rānei, te taiaha rānei, ki ētahi atu, kāo. E noho nei koutou ki ō koutou whenua. Nā wai rā, nā wai rā, ā, ka eke ngā hōia ki Te Waerenga-a-Hika. E ai ki tāku i rongo nei, i tūkinohia ngā wāhine, tae atu ki ngā tamariki. He aha te putanga mai, he kore kai, he kore whenua. Nā, kei konei tonu ka kite atu i te āhuatanga o ngā ōritenga o ngā kerēme kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare nei.

Me kōrero anō te āhuatanga o te tono a wētahi o Ngai Tāmanuhiri ki tāwāhi ki Wharekauri, mō ngā rua tau. Ki tōku mōhio, kāre te noho ki reira i pai, he uaua rawa atu. I heria ki reira mō te aha? Mō te kore take noa iho. Mō te kore take noa iho. Nō reira, ko wai ka hē i te āhuatanga o te kōrero a te Karauna, me whakapāhā ia ka tika. Ka mutu, ā, ko te ekenga o te hōia ki runga i ngā whenua. I pērātia i Taranaki, i pērātia i roto o Tauranga Moana, i pērātia i wāhi kē. Ā, ko taua āhua anō rā i runga i a koutou e Ngai Tāmanuhiri. Ka mutu, ko te whakakorenga o te pānga o Ngai Tāmanuhiri ki tōna whenua tupu. Ko taua āhua anō rā, huri noa te motu. He whānako whenua, he tāhae whenua, he muru whenua, ērā āhuatanga katoa. Ka pērā anō hoki ki a koutou kai aku rangatira. He āhua whakawehewehe i te whenua, tētahi wāhanga ki tēnā, tētahi wāhanga ki tēnā.

Engari, ki tāku titiro o te Ao Māori, me whakakotahi nei te whenua mō te painga o te katoa. Kia kaua e whakawehewehe i te whenua. Nā te aha? Kāre he paku painga. Ka pērā tonu te noho o te tangata. I pērā rawa te Kōti Whenua Māori i ngā tau kua hipa. I pērā anō hoki i wāhi kē o te motu. Nā, ko te ture, ko te Public Works Act tētahi. Kātahi te pire weriweri rawa atu ko tērā. Ko tāna mahi, ā, taua āhua anō ko te whānako i te whenua. Nā, ki tāku i pānui nei i roto i te āhuatanga ki a koutou Ngai Tāmanuhiri, ā, i puta te kōrero mō te Manutūkē consolidation scheme. Ēhara i te mea kei te tino mōhio au ki te āhuatanga o tērā take engari, ki tāku e mōhio nei mai i te tau 1958, i tuku, i whakaaetia e te Karauna kia tuku i ētahi whenua kē o iwi kē ki a koutou me kī, mō te āhuatanga o tāna whānako i te whenua i te tuatahi. I pērā anō hoki ki wāhi kē. Nā, i te putanga o te para, o te hamuti, ki tua o te moana o Tūranga, hei whakaparuparu, hei tūkino i te takutai, pērā anō hoki ki ētahi atu wāhi. Ko taua āhua anō. Ka mutu, i a Ngai Tāmanuhiri ētahi wāhi tapu, ā, he aha te mahi a te kāwanatanga? He whānako i ngā wāhi tapu nei. Nō reira, e, kua eke, kua eke ki tēnei wā o te hiahia ki te whakatau i ngā kerēme. Nō reira haramai i raro i te āhuatanga o tērā i kōrero, Ngai Tāmanuhiri.

I te hui o te mātauranga i te rangi nei, i puta te kōrero ko te tino kaupapa ko te mātauranga. Ana, ko tēnei take, me heri i ngā kura katoa o Te Tai Rāwhiti kia mōhio mai ai, ā, ko ngā pānga, ngā uauatanga i pā mai ki a koutou e aku rangatira.

Ka huri atu rā ki a au, ki a Ngāti Mākino, ki te taha ki a au ki a Te Arawa. E te pāpā Te Ariki haere mai, me tō tātau tira. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero. He kōrero i puta i a koe i ngā tau kua hipa ake. Ko tāu kōrero ki tētahi hui i te kāinga e pēnei ana. E kī, e kī ko wai te pokokōhua e kī ana, ēhara a Ngāti Mākino i te iwi. Taku mōhio e tika ana taku kōrero. E kī, e kī, ko wai te pokokōhua e kī ana ēhara a Ngāti Mākino i te iwi? Anā, ko te whakatinanatanga, ko te puāwaitanga, ko te hua o tērā kōrero, kei roto i te pire i te pō nei. Ahakoa ngā kōrero i te kāinga, anā, kua whakamanahia e te ture i tēnei pō. Kai taku pāpā, haere mai.

E kore au e kōrero whānui nei mō te āhuatanga o tēnei take i te mea, ā, ko tātau anō tātau. Engari, ko te mea pai, ā, ka hoki anō rā ngā maunga, ngā wāhi tapu ki a tātau o te kāinga. Ka mutu ka whiwhi i tētahi pūtea hai āwhina anō hoki i ngā mea katoa. Nō reira, e aroha atu ana ki te hunga kāre i konei i tēnei pō ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, ki te whakatutuki i tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā hui i runga i tērā o ngā marae o tātau, i Ōtamarākau. Ka mutu, i eke atu te Minita, ko tāu tohutohu ki a ia e te matua, ki te kī atu me homai te pūtea, ērā āhuatanga katoa. Ko te puāwaitanga o ngā kōrero i te pō nei, anā kua eke, kua eke tēnei pire i te pō nei. Nō reira, kua rahi māku mō tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Ko tāku noa ake, he whakatakoto i ētahi kōrero hei wānanga mā tātau. Me te mihi ki a koutou e kawe nei ki tēnei mihinga mokopuna e rua nei ki tēnei taumata. Kua eke, kua eke, kua eke. Tīhei mauri ora! Kia ora tātau.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and greetings to all of us, the House. To begin my speech, I must pay tribute to those above in the public gallery. Thank you for coming from so far away. Some of you arrived this morning to the conference on education called by the Hon Hēkia Parata. However, this evening we have another matter. So I want to simply follow up the acknowledgments by the Minister of Māori Affairs to each and every one of you. Not just to Ngāti Mākino by itself, or Ngai Tāmanuhiri separately, but rather, let us say, to you collectively who came here tonight to listen to the speeches—so greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all. Welcome, with the deaths of the day to be acknowledged shortly. I salute those who lost their lives and served in the armed forces. Welcome, old one, God of War. Come into this Chamber, upon whose walls are the stories. So this is you who have arrived. Welcome to you and everyone throughout the Chamber, greetings to you and all of us.

I will not repeat what the Minister has stated. He has already addressed the issues relating to you of Ngai Tāmanuhiri and of Ngāti Mākino. I fear that some may say that much of this Māori’s address will be on him, Te Arawa, and Ngāti Mākino. Anyway, that is that talk. I simply want to speak broadly, because you have heard the tenor of the speeches expressed tonight. I will not talk genealogy. It is not the done thing for Te Arawa to talk about genealogy relating to Ngai Tāmanuhiri. That is for them to relate. In matters relating to me, Te Arawa, my uncle Te Ariki Mōrehu is here; that is his domain, he speaks for me.

But this evening I want to speak in broad terms about the issues in the bills. There are many similarities in bills like these. Firstly, within these bills is an apology by the Crown. That is good. There must be an apology for the wrongdoing, interference, and abuses by the Crown against various tribes and subtribes in years past. It is only right that an apology is given. Secondly, what is at the heart of these problems and of these claims under scrutiny? The land is the reason. It was confiscated by a form of law; I will come back to that point in a short while. To me, the third reason is the lack of knowledge by most of the country of the commentary and history lying hidden in these bills. Most of the stories relating to this tribe and that tribe have yet to be published to the nation. When Maori put their hand up and say “This is mine under the Treaty of Waitangi.”, some people do not even consider it. Why? They do not know—that is why. So if there is something positive in these kinds of bills, it has to be that, in my view: the release of knowledge and stories about Ngāti Mākino and Ngai Tāmanuhiri to all tribes bringing issues before Parliament.

Enough, let me go back again to the speeches at the beginning. According to what I see now, let us start with you, Ngai Tāmanuhiri, for a short while. Before 1865, Ngai Tāmanuhiri owned their lands at that time. But what I see now is that you sat on the fence somewhat over the East Coast battles that year. You did not lend a helping hand to anyone else, take up the patu, taiaha, or engage in warfare. No. And yet, here you are now, occupying your lands. Eventually, and after a period of time, colonial soldiers overcame Te Waerenga-a-Hika. I understand that women and children were abused. Loss of food and land resulted. Now you can see here the similarities of the claims that have come into this House.

Mention must be made of the circumstances that saw some of Ngai Tāmanuhiri banished over the waters to the Chatham Islands for 2 years, as I understand it. Living conditions were difficult there. Why were they sent there? There was not a reason. Not one. So whoever suffers as the result of an action of the Crown must receive an apology. Further to that, there was invasion of lands by soldiers. That happened in Taranaki and in Tauranga, and in other areas, as it did to you, as well, Ngai Tāmanuhiri, hence the confiscation of Ngai Tāmanuhiri’s interests in their ancestral lands. It was like that throughout the country. Land was stolen, taken wrongfully, and all those kind of things. It happened to you, too, my chiefs. It was a form of partitioning land off, a portion to that person and another to someone else.

But from my Māori perspective, we must amalgamate the land so that the benefit goes to everyone. Keep the land as one—do not divide it. Why? Benefit will not accrue by doing it that way. The lifestyle of a person will not change—it remains on hold. The Māori Land Court was like that in the past. It was like that in other parts of the country, as well. The Public Works Act was one. What despicable legislation that was. Its job in those times was to steal the land. Now what I have read in relation to you, Ngai Tāmanuhiri, was published in the statement about the Manutūkē consolidation scheme. It is not as though I really know much about the circumstances relating to that scheme, but I understand that from 1958 the Crown came to an agreement and released to you some lands belonging to another tribe, as compensation for the land it stole from you in the first place. That happened elsewhere, as well. Rubbish and sewage went out to sea near Gisborne, tarnishing and damaging the coast, as in other areas. Furthermore, Ngai Tāmanuhiri had sacred sites, and what role did the Government have in that? To steal those sacred sites. So the desire to settle claims is at hand and has been reached. So come forth under the circumstances of that statement, Ngai Tāmanuhiri.

At the forum on education today, a statement was made that the real emphasis must be on education. There it is in a nutshell: take all the schools on the East Coast and make them aware of the effects and difficulties that will affect you, my leaders.

I turn now to focus my attention on myself, on Ngāti Mākino, that side that connects me to Te Arawa. Welcome, my uncle Te Ariki Mōrehu, with your company of travellers, welcome. Let me share this story about something you said some years ago. What you said at a gathering at home went like this: “Is that so? What a cheek! Who is the boiled head saying that Ngāti Mākino is not a tribe?”. To my knowledge, what I have recounted is true: “Is that so? What a cheek! Who is the boiled head saying that Ngāti Mākino is not a tribe?”. There you are, what blossomed and came into existence out of that statement is all there in the bill tonight. Regardless of what was said at home, it will move through the stages of becoming law tonight. So to you, esteemed father, welcome.

I will not expand too much on the circumstances of this matter, because we are who we are. But the good thing, perhaps, about all this, is that the mountains and sacred sites will return once again to us at home. Furthermore, we will get funding to help us as well, in everything. However, my heart goes out to those who are not here tonight to listen to the speeches that will complete this legislation. I think back to the meetings on our marae at Ōtamarākau. Furthermore, when the Minister came on, your advice to him was to provide the funding and everything else. All the talk comes to bear this evening, it has made it, this legislation has made it this evening. So, I have said enough about this legislation. What is left for me to do is to simply put forth some statements for us to debate, and to congratulate you collectively, of course, for bringing these two little offerings to this level. It has made it, it has made it, it has made it. Behold the breath of life! Thanks to everyone.]

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): It is a great privilege for me to stand on behalf of New Zealand First. Today is a landmark day. Toitū te whenua, toitū te tangata, toitū te mana—the land endures, the people prevail, the mana is secure. These tribal settlements are about the nexus of place, people, and prestige. They do not guarantee success of their own right, but they do acknowledge the debt of history.

I would also agree with the speakers who have been before me, and I would welcome everyone here in the gallery. And I would ask you please to stand, because although you are small in number, you are immense in presence. You represent the hard work, the blood, the sweat, the tears of all those who have gone before you. You know the hardships that you have endured, and your place is special here in this whare raiona—this lion’s den. Here you are.

I would like to acknowledge Tū Wyllie. I acknowledge Tū as an example of the many people who have done such hard work, as he was a former New Zealand First MP. He knows what hard work is about. He knows about loyalty, and so I would like to acknowledge him—

Hon Tau Henare: Whatever! Talk about something you know about.

BRENDAN HORAN: —unlike some follicly challenged members I know. But never mind; this is not the time for that. What I am saying, though, is that I am proud to be here and I acknowledge your presence, and you are not alone, because I see many people here. I see a great presence. If you would join with me and waiata with me:

E Ihowā Atua,

O ngā iwi mātou rā,

Āta whakarangona

Me aroha noa

Kia hua ko te pai;

Kia tau tō atawhai;

Manaakitia mai

Aotearoa

Thank you.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Tēnā koe e te Rangatira, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou i haere mai i tēnei pō. Nō reira, mihi kau atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, greetings to you. Greetings to those of you who came here tonight. So acknowledgments to you all.]

New Zealand First, back in the House, eh? And all they can do is sing the national anthem! That is it. That is the sum total of New Zealand First’s contribution to two Treaty bills. Damn, that was good! I cannot wait to go home and tell my moko that Brendan Horan had the opportunity to say something really, really deep, and all he could do was sing the national anthem. And do you know what, Brendan Horan? It was not even a good version. And let me tell those people over there that if he wants to have a go about loyalty in New Zealand First, then how come Tū Wyllie was not put up to No. 2 on the list when he stayed with New Zealand First? I do not think that is anything to do with loyalty.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What number are you?

Hon TAU HENARE: No. 40 and I still got in. No. 40 and I still got in. No. 40 and there were still people after me who got in. It may not happen next time, but I am very proud of the fact. It may not happen again, but, hey, I do not digress.

Andrew Williams: Why are you playing snakes and ladders?

Hon TAU HENARE: Sorry, what was that?

Andrew Williams: Why are you playing snakes and ladders, with you being the snake going downwards?

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, look, at least I can go to the toilet properly.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are here this evening debating and discussing a very, very serious matter that history has put asunder, that people in Parliament have trampled on, and I think it is correct that we get on with the business rather than play oral fights.

Hon TAU HENARE: Speaking to the point of order, there is a long tradition in this House that when there are interjections, a member who has got the call can respond to those interjections—especially if they are of a personal nature.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I also remind the House that if they look at Speakers’ rulings, there is also some leeway given when people make contributions in the House.

Hon TAU HENARE: We have heard the platitudes of nearly every member in the House, and along with those I add mine as well. My congratulations go to iwi, to the Government, to the Public Service, to the Office of Treaty Settlements, to Crown Law, and to everybody involved in trying to bring closure to this aspect of New Zealand’s history.

But let us not forget that it is a deal between the Crown and iwi. Therefore, I want to ruffle a few feathers, as I am wont to do on many occasions, and say that this House looks very seriously at how we deal with Treaty settlements. I say that because when the bill comes to the Māori Affairs Committee, the select committee cannot change any part of the deal between iwi and the Crown—it cannot do that. And sometimes I wonder why we waste iwi time, and why we waste the House’s time, by having the bill go to a select committee. It is my opinion that because it is a deal between the Crown and iwi, there must be some way where we can speed up the process so that iwi can get on with the job of looking after iwi.

So I want to say that what we have done in the select committee is two things. One is to split the committee in half and have a couple of committees go out and do our business. And we have also promised ourselves that the turn-round will not be 6 months, it will not be 3 months; it will be between 4 and 8 weeks. So we give that commitment to iwi so that they can get on with the job at hand.

I will not be too long, but there is something else that I want to respond to, and that is some suggestion that section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act has something to do with what we are talking about. All I can say is that at the end of the consultation process, I can guarantee—because I am a member of this Government—that there will be the Crown’s response to iwi and the Crown’s recognition that it must take into account the Treaty of Waitangi. That is the Crown’s responsibility. So if section 9 does go, there will be a rewritten clause that still says the Crown has a responsibility to take into account the Treaty of Waitangi.

I just briefly want to mention something that the Hon Parekura Horomia mentioned in his speech, and that is the issue about rates, and it has been a vexed issue for Government as far back as my great-grandfather who just happened to be a member of Parliament nearly 100 years ago. I think that there is coming a time where we will—both sides of the House—have to agree on a mechanism for the rating, or not, of Māori land, because it is getting completely out of hand, and the only losers are those Māori who have shares in Māori land.

Hoi anō, taku mihi ki a koutou katoa. Anō taku mihi ki a ngā rangatira o te Whare nei, taku tuakana a Parekura, ā, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Thus I acknowledge you all. My compliments to the leading figures of this House, to my elder Parekura, so greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, ngā mihi tino pai o tēnei tau. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou ngā rangatira o Ngai Tāmanuhiri me Ngāti Mākino. Ko koutou te reo karanga o te rā. Mihi tonu atu ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and the very finest of this year to you. Greetings to you, the leaders of Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino, greetings. It is your voice that calls today. This acknowledgment is directed at you all, so salutations and greetings.]

I am very proud to join with my Labour colleagues here in support of the two bills before this House this evening: the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill. It is an honour, because I completed my maiden speech just a couple of days ago and today is my first official speech before the House, so I am very thrilled to be talking to these very important bills.

I acknowledge Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino for travelling here today to celebrate this significant occasion and the passage of these important bills before the House, and in the progression of your Treaty settlements. So I mihi to you all.

As an uri of Tahupōtiki—Ngāi Tahu—I would like to specifically just focus at this point of my speech on the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge the whanaungatanga connections that I have and that all of us in Te Tai Tonga and Ngāi Tahu whānui, whom I represent, have with Ngai Tāmanuhiri. I acknowledge the common ancestry we that we have as cousins. The Ngai Tāmanuhiri claims settlement is the first of the Tūranga claims, which is the first in the Gisborne area. So I also acknowledge getting first off the blocks in terms of the progression of this bill to this stage. I look forward to seeing other progress made across the Tūranga region.

We would not be here today without the support, effort, hard work, and toil over many years that has gone into the claims from both of the respective iwi. I acknowledge all of those who have gone before—who have progressed and championed and gone through tribunal processes, and the hard sweat and toil that goes into bringing the settlements to this point in time. In particular, I would like to acknowledge all of those who were involved in the Ngai Tāmanuhiri lands claim negotiations team: Dawn Pōmana, Reuben Riki, who died just before the land claims hearings commenced, Melanie Tarsau, and Pauline Hill; then, in 2007, Hope Tūpara; and from 2008 to 2011, Nā Rongowhakaata Raihānia. I also acknowledge the research team that was involved with the Ngai Tāmanuhiri claims: Warren Pōhatū, Noel Pōhatū, Hope Tūpara, kaumātua Nā Raihānia, Hare Pōhatū, who is deceased, Rose Thompson, who is also deceased—and we acknowledge them—Temple Isaacs, and Nolan Raihānia, who I understand are in the House tonight. I acknowledge all of those individuals in regard to participating in the hard work of advancing these important claims through to this point in time, to this stage of the bill.

In terms of my own association with Ngai Tāmanuhiri, I would like to relate my own firsthand experience dealing with Ngai Tāmanuhiri when I was with Ngāi Tahu. I mentioned the close association that we have whakapapa-wise, and that extended right in terms of the fisheries settlements, with the Treaty tribes coalition, and the kaupapa that we stood on with mana whenua, mana moana. So I acknowledge Ngai Tāmanuhiri in that respect and in the history that we have in those other areas of Treaty settlements. In particular, what I learnt from my associations with Ngāi Tāmanuhiri—and, in particular, Dawn Pōmana—was the very principled approach that they have to their tikanga. That was to the fore in all the dealings that Ngāi Tahu had with Ngai Tāmanuhiri in terms of our annual dealings around our fisheries transactions and the like. That has flowed through to all of the mahi that has gone on, culminating this evening in the presentation of this bill for its first reading.

I would like to also acknowledge the history that is embodied in the settlement that is now before us in this bill, which was ratified through the deed of settlement. That actually goes back to all of the historical injustices and grievances that were inflicted upon Ngai Tāmanuhiri by the Crown, right through from the 1860s, in terms of land dealings and the operation of the Poverty Bay Commission, and the impact of the operation of the Native Land Court. There is a lot of history and a lot of grievances there, and they were fully expressed through the Waitangi Tribunal reports. They highlighted the very severe breaches of the Treaty in the Tūranga area and, in particular, against Ngai Tāmanuhiri.

The historical background is there, and these settlements go some way towards trying to acknowledge the grievances of the past, and I know the Crown does include its apologies, but it does not nearly compensate for all of the lost opportunities, the mamae, and the grievance that has been inflicted upon the iwi and the many generations of whānau. That is why I am very proud to be here this evening to play my part in advancing this important bill through to the next stage, so we can actually enact some measure of redress and compensation and apologies through this legislation, and so we can address the issues of the past and also lay a platform for ongoing relationships for Ngai Tāmanuhiri and the Crown, and also for Ngāti Mākino and the Crown.

I would just like to support again with my Labour colleagues the passage of this legislation through to the select committee stage. I acknowledge my whanaunga the Hon Tau Henare nō te nōta as our chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. I look forward to playing my part on the committee, especially when we will be breaking into two subcommittees so we can advance the progression of these bills, and to leading this legislation right through this House so that we can finally put the seal on it and pass it right the way through the House. I commend the passage of this legislation at this time. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I am pleased to speak on the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill. I must admit to the House this is the first time I have spoken on a Treaty settlement bill. I am new on the Māori Affairs Committee, so I apologise to those listening if I cannot give this legislation quite the thorough explanation, acknowledgment, and indeed acclamation that I know the legislation deserves. I will, however, be doing my best to listen to the submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I am sure I will indeed get quite an education under the guidance of rangatira Tau Henare, our chairman on the Māori Affairs Committee.

I wish to first acknowledge the work that has been done by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and all those involved in getting these settlement bills to the point that they are at now. The great progress that the Minister has made on completing final and durable settlements of Treaty of Waitangi claims in a timely manner, through his tenure as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, is impressive.

I think New Zealand is still maturing as a nation, and we are stepping forward into the 21st century. Part of the maturing process is acknowledging the rights and wrongs of the past. It would be easy for New Zealanders to simply ignore that in our short history as a country many cultural and economic wrongs were committed. Indeed, for many decades New Zealand has ignored that these issues prevailed. But the fact that we are here together, today, debating these bills, these pieces of legislation, that will stand alongside many past and future settlement bills, indicates that as a country we are ready to accept the past and move forward.

The part of the country that I represent, the Botany electorate, is predominantly white, middle to upper-class suburban Auckland. It is an area of the country that is quite sceptical of Treaty settlements, and I have to admit that I probably was too, up until recently. But the more I have seen and read of Treaty settlements and the programme, and the more I have watched from afar the work that the Minister and the Office of Treaty Settlements have done, the more I can see that through resolving the wrongs of the past we can refloat and regain momentum for the waka that is harmonious New Zealand race relations. In my view the key part to reassuring New Zealanders who are sceptical about Treaty settlements is to assure them that under this Government Treaty settlements have been, and will continue to be, full, fair, and final.

Parts of the deeds of settlement, which outline historical grievances for both Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino, I have to say, make for very sobering reading. In the case of Ngai Tāmanuhiri we read of indiscriminate looting of the Tūranga region at the hands of the Crown in the aftermath of the Waerenga-a-hika attack. The Waerenga-a-hika attack itself saw women and children, among other occupants, put through unwarranted and unjust attacks at the hands of the Crown. Land was compulsorily acquired without compensation, and many Ngai Tāmanuhiri were left virtually landless.

A similar story is told in the case of Ngāti Mākino. The year 1864 saw the loss of life at the hands of the Crown, confiscation of land in the Eastern Bay of Plenty took place in 1866, and between 1873 and 1900, 82,000 hectares of Ngāti Mākino land was alienated. By the end of the 19th century less than 4 percent of land of Ngāti Mākino’s Waitahanui, Tāhunaroa, and Whakarewa blocks remained in their hands—and please excuse my pronunciation if I have got any of those incorrect. These are just a few of the many injustices that took place in the past—injustices that up until recently were not acknowledged. But the Crown has now acknowledged these injustices and has apologised through these two settlements. The settlements we have before us tonight will help Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino unlock economic potential and provide a boost to their regional and provincial areas. In turn, these two iwi will be able to contribute in an even greater way towards building a more competitive and productive New Zealand economy.

These bills are worthy of passage through their first reading tonight. I ask that the House does support them, and I hope that we have thorough and good quality recognition of the issues through the select committee process. I am looking forward to hearing about the issues that we will be discussing at the select committee, and I look forward to this legislation passing its first reading.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call, 5 minutes with Labour and 5 minutes with the Greens. I will ring a bell with 1 minute to go.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. Ka tāpiri atu āku mihi i waihotia ki a koutou Ngāti Mākino, Ngai Tāmanuhiri i tau mai nei ki roto i tō Whare, ki te whakarongo ki ēnei kōrero i tēnei pō. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. I add my tributes that were bestowed upon you Ngāti Mākino and Ngai Tāmanuhiri when you landed here in your House to listen to these speeches tonight. So greetings to you collectively, greetings to you and to us all.]

Treaty settlements are more than an academic exercise. It is about passion and the history of people who are trying to seek redress for past wrongs. I want to acknowledge that this is a first reading opportunity for the bills from Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino to come to the House, so the substance of the investigations on the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill will in fact occur in the Māori Affairs Committee, which is right. But it is important to note that in the innovation of hearing Treaty settlements over this period of time—and I came into Parliament when the first lot of Treaty settlements started to come to this House—we as members of Parliament have started to improve processes around the processing of Treaty settlements, because, by and large, if the purpose of Brendan Horan’s speech was to highlight that the nation that we seek to create is one built strongly on biculturalism, and the national anthem is in Māori and English, then Treaty settlements are an important part of creating a sense of nationhood and identity, and addressing the historical wrongs is a strong pillar of what Aotearoa New Zealand should stand for. It is a country where those rights of tangata whenua are recognised, where the hurts of the past are addressed, but where, enabled to get over that particular hurdle, the next generation can look forward and move forward with confidence. And it is no easy feat to reach this part of a Treaty settlement. So my comments are, by and large, to both Ngāti Mākino and Ngai Tāmanuhiri.

Sometimes people wonder why we are coming to the House to hear the first reading speeches when everybody seems to be saying the same thing again, and again, and again in 10 different ways. But let me give you three good reasons why the select committee process is an important process. Firstly, it ensures the intent of your deed aligns to how the legislation actually reads. As you all know, some times the devil is in the detail. So it is really important during the scrutiny at the select committee for members to look at what was intended in the deed and how the legislation reads to ensure that it lines up. That is the first thing.

The second thing is the broader aspect of educating our country. Members of Parliament hold, in some sense, a microcosm of the view of our communities, from where we come from, and we can inform our communities about what is happening through the Treaty settlement process, and allay fears, but also present new opportunities for people to learn about histories that are not easily found in the history books.

The third part of the select committee process, which is often a critical part but the most difficult to challenge and change, is for members or Parliament to put greater scrutiny on the way in which the Crown or the Government acts, and that is through the Office of Treaty Settlements when it deals with Māori. It is very difficult to challenge the way in which the Office of Treaty Settlements often engages through the negotiation process, but it is an opportunity for members of Parliament to put a fine lens on issues that are highlighted to them at the select committee process to ensure that people are treated fairly in the way they seek to negotiate redress through their Treaty settlement. So those are but three reasons why the select committee process in bringing your bills to the House is a necessary if not absolutely important task of achieving Treaty settlements.

I will reserve my comments on the substance of these two bills, if I get the opportunity to speak to the third readings. But I want to acknowledge those people who have passed, both from Ngāti Mākino and Ngai Tāmanuhiri, those people who have carried the flame of your Treaty settlement claim to this point, and those kaumātua who now hold the flame so that the next generation continues to tell the story that must be told to ensure the most important clause of both your bills—and that is clause 4: “This Act binds the Crown.” And for as long as this Act binds the Crown, then it is inherent on every member of Parliament who accedes to your Treaty settlement that it be implemented in the manner for which it was intended, and that is to uphold the deed in your Treaty settlement.

Nō reira, i raro i ērā kupu poto kua whakarāpopoto āku nei kōrero ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[So under the realm of those brief words, I shorten this address of mine to you collectively. Greetings to you all.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call—which one is this? I call Denise Roche. My apologies—there are three of you who look very similar.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We Pākehā often look the same! Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. E ngā rangatira o Ngāti Mākino nau mai, haere mai ki konei. E ngā rangatira o Ngai Tāmanuhiri, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you collectively, greetings, greetings. Welcome to the leaders of Ngāti Mākino, welcome here. Greetings collectively as well to you, the leaders of Ngai Tāmanuhiri, greetings, greetings.]

This is my first time as well, standing after my maiden speech, and I am privileged to be speaking on these bills tonight, the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge all the statements that have gone before me, and I particularly want to mihi to Nanaia Mahuta about the building of nationhood and the importance of the passing of these settlements, which will do that for our country of Aotearoa.

The Green Party has a story that we want to tell. It is basically about our relationship with Ngai Tāmanuhiri. This is not to disrespect the settlement process that is going through for Ngāti Mākino, but there has been a personal relationship that we want to outline. The $12 million settlement can be described really as a deal, but not a settlement. The people from Muriwai and the rohe katoa have negotiated a deal, and we have been told by some that it was a valuable process in terms of reaffirming their own story, but it is a deal. It is what they could get. Settlement means when all the dust has been laid to rest; there is still dust floating in the clouds around Te Kurī a Paoa. It is not for the Green Party to say what should have been included in that settlement—that is your story; that is the work that you have been doing for decades and decades—but we do have a story that we want to acknowledge.

Ngai Tāmanuhiri say that when Capitain Cook’s and Young Nick’s ship entered the bay at Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa they became the front line of the historical mythology of how this country was colonised. Their maunga—Te Kurī a Paoa—was renamed Young Nicks Head by Captain Cook. The appropriation of Te Kurī a Paoa did not stop there, and that is how the Green Party, through my colleague Catherine Delahunty and her partner Gordon Jackman, became involved, supporting the 21st century struggle of Ngai Tāmanuhiri to stop the sale of Te Kurī a Paoa to a New York stockbroker called John Griffin.

The maunga had been in Pākehā hands for many years as a farm, and when the Coop family decided to sell it Ngai Tāmanuhiri sought desperately for the money to make an offer to regain their maunga. In 2002 the Greens supported their occupation of the pā site Rangihoua, and Green MPs at the time Rod Donald, Nandor Tanczos, and our co-leader Metiria Turei all visited the occupation, if you can call sitting on your own maunga such a thing. Current Green MP Catherine Delahunty and Gordon Jackman also supported the Ngai Tāmanuhiri hīkoi to Wellington to fight for the opportunity for purchase. A ghastly compromise meant that some of the wāhi tapu would be kept as public land and access to them acknowledged, while most of the maunga was sold to Mr Griffin. Foreign ownership of an iconic landmark was a national disgrace, as well as a breach of te Tiriti, but Mr Griffin had the most money. Under this bill, Ngai Tāmanuhiri regain the pā site on the maunga, Rangihoua, and the cliff-face is gifted to the nation in recognition of history. Their generosity is greater than anything ever shown to you as a people in this painful story, but the pā site is an important and significant inclusion.

The Green Party still believes that foreign ownership of sacred maunga is an abuse of te Tiriti, and we regret that the settlement process amounts to a partial redress of a deep hara. The access to fighting grounds of ancient value and current needs is via the permission of the American stockbroker and his farm manager—it is goodwill. It is good that the forestry lands on Wharerata will be available to purchase now to Ngai Tāmanuhiri, but at market rates. We stole your whenua and now you can buy it back at market rates—that is the deal. Take it or leave it!

There is more to be said on this history, but at first reading we simply wish to acknowledge the people of Muriwai, the rohe, and also Te Kurī a Paoa, where the pou was placed by the people during the protests and where it still stands in the winds, always belonging to mana whenua, whatever the outcome of the process. And so it will always stand. We acknowledge the journey that you have yet to go. We will support this bill. We recognise that it does not meet the full redress, and that is something we are concerned about, but we support you. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou ngā rangatira o Ngai Tāmanuhiri me Ngāti Mākino. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, and the House. I extend greetings to you, the many leaders, in respect of the matter of the day. Greetings to the leaders of Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Ngāti Mākino. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all.]

I am proud to stand and take the final call in this first reading of the Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill, and very proud of the record that we have made as a National Government in getting durable settlements through, as part of our progress towards full partnership. I am proud of our Ministers involved, and, like all members of this House, I am very proud to be supporting unanimously this first reading. I look forward to meeting with you during the select committee process. Thank you.

Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata.

Second Readings

Second Readings

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): As the lead speaker on these cognate bills covering five iwi, I seek leave for an extension of 2 minutes on my time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I shall ring the bell at 10 minutes with 2 minutes to go.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Tēnā koe. I move, That the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill, Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill, and Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Nā reira tuatahi, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou kua hara mai nei i tēnei pō me ngā mea kāre anō kia tae mai. E tika ana kia mihi atu ki ēnei iwi, ā, kua hīkoi i te hīkoi te roroanga mai i te tīmatanga tae noa ki tēnei rangi, nā reira, tēnā koutou e kaha ākina. Tēnā koutou i ō koutou tini aituā. Ka hoki aku mahara ki a tātou e tū kaha ana ki te tautoko i ēnei āhuatanga kai roto i ō koutou iwi. Ko Bill Bird tētahi, ko te pāpā Whatumoana, ko Tā Hēnare Ngāta, ko Meagan Joe, ko rātau me ngā mate o te wā nei. Haere koutou, okioki mai.

Nā reira, ka hoki au ki tēnei kōrero, ka mihi atu ki a koutou kua rauika i te pō nei. Kāre e roa aku kōrero mō ēnei pire nā te mea he pānuitanga tuarua tēnei, ā, waiho mō te pānui whakamutunga, te pānui tuatoru kia tū motuhake ēnei pire, ā, e āta kōrero ai tātau i konei i roto i te Whare Pāremata. Heoi anō, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Firstly, I wish to acknowledge those of you who came this evening and also those who have not yet arrived. It is appropriate that I pay tribute to these tribes who have been on this long journey since the beginning to this day. Congratulations on your resilience. I acknowledge you and your many dead. My thoughts go back to when we stood staunch in support of these circumstances within your tribes. Bill Bird was one, our father-figure Whatumoana, Sir Hēnare Ngata, and Meagan Joe were others, and the deaths of the day. Depart, rest there.

So I go back to this comment: welcome to you collectively who have assembled here tonight. I will not spend too long on these bills, because it is the second reading. Wait for the final and third reading when these bills stand independently and when we can address them here at length in the Chamber. So greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you.]

Ngāti Manawa: the area of interest for Ngāti Manawa is based around Murupara and the Kaingaroa Plains in the inland Bay of Plenty. The claims of Ngāti Manawa relate primarily to the consequences of its loyalty to the Crown during the New Zealand Wars, Crown actions and omissions in respect of the operation and impact of the native land laws, and the Crown’s land purchasing techniques, particularly in respect of land Ngāti Manawa. This settlement is intended to recognise the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual interests of Ngāti Manawa. The key aspects of Ngāti Manawa’s cultural redress package aim to reinvigorate the relationship between Ngāti Manawa and sites of significance. It is the intention of this settlement that this will be done through the vesting of sites of particular significance to Ngāti Manawa, the erection of pou rāhui to mark traditional iwi boundaries, the creation of a body to restore Ngāti Manawa’s and Ngāti Whare’s mana over their ancestral river and their relationship with tuna, and the transfer and gift back of the ancestral maunga, Tāwhiuau, to Ngāti Manawa.

Mō Ngāti Whare: the claims of Ngāti Whare primarily relate to the Crown’s actions during the New Zealand Wars, specifically the impact of the Native Land Court and subsequent land alienation, the enactment of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, which disenfranchised Ngāti Whare from its land, and the return of Minginui Village by the Crown without providing Ngāti Whare with sufficient resources to bring the village infrastructure up to the standards of the Government. Ngāti Whare’s settlement acknowledges the Whirinaki Te Pua-ā-Tāne Conservation Park as a special place to both Ngāti Whare as kaitiaki and the people of New Zealand. It also establishes a renewed and enduring partnership between Ngāti Whare and the Crown. In particular, the settlement provides for a joint governance of the Whirinaki Te Pua-ā-Tāne Conservation Park by Ngāti Whare and the Crown. The settlement also provides Ngāti Whare with assistance to regenerate indigenous mataī, rimu, and kahikatea in areas of pine forest within the Whirinaki Crown forest licensed land.

The Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill: anō, ka mihi au ki a koutou o Maniapoto. I acknowledge the work carried out by the Māori Affairs Committee and thank committee members for their support and guidance on the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill. The relationship between Ngāti Maniapoto and the Waipā River is significant and enduring, based on a deep-felt respect that the people of Ngāti Maniapoto have for the river Waipā. This gives rise to their responsibility to protect te mana o te wai and to exercise kaitiakitanga in accordance with their tikanga. Ngāti Maniapoto and Waikato-Tainui share a strong relationship through the Tainui waka, which is manifested in the support they each give to the Kīngitanga. In a similar way, their sacred awa, Waikato and Waipā, are inextricably linked. From Ngāruawāhia, the pathways of these rivers join, and their waters flow together as one. The overarching purpose of the co-governance and co-management arrangements is to restore and maintain the quality and integrity of the waters that flow into and from, and form part of, the Waipā River for present and future generations. The co-governance arrangements within the bill extend towards the headwaters of the Waipā River at Pekepeke Springs in the Rangitoto ranges, supporting the ongoing aspirations and responsibilities shared by Ngāti Maniapoto and the Crown to protect and nurture the Waipā River. Extending the co-governance framework to include the whole of the Waipā River will contribute significantly to achieving an integrated, holistic, and coordinated approach to the management of both the Waipā River and the Waikato River, to the implementation of the vision and strategy, and to river rehabilitation and clean-up initiatives. The Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill complements the Waikato River settlement and the Waikato River co-management deeds with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi. These arrangements are similar and contribute to establishing a single, unified co-governance framework for both the Waipā River and the Waikato River.

The Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill: the grievances of Ngati Porou are longstanding. This bill recognises and addresses those grievances and settles the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngati Porou. The area of interest for Ngati Porou is on the East Coast of the North Island. The historical grievances of Ngati Porou relate primarily to the Crown’s failure to honour its Treaty promise to respect Ngati Porou rangatiratanga over its own affairs. The Crown imposed land tenure reform on Ngati Porou, which deprived iwi members of collective control over their land and made it difficult to utilise their land for economic development. Although it is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Porou or any claimant group for the loss that people have suffered, the redress in this bill seeks to recognise the longstanding cultural and spiritual association that Ngati Porou has within the region. It gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the deed of settlement by offering reconciliation redress, including an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments, and an apology; cultural redress that vests sites of cultural and historic significance; and a number of arrangements designed to facilitate good working relationships between Ngati Porou and the Crown. The financial and commercial redress of the settlement comprises $90 million in financial and commercial redress, $20 million in cultural and historical redress, and redress over Crown properties, including licensed forest land. I am confident that the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill will settle the claims of Ngati Porou in a full and final manner, and set the foundation for a productive future relationship with the Crown.

Finally, I will speak on the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. Although I was unable to participate in the policy decisions about the Ngāti Pāhauwera settlement, due to a declared conflict of interest—yeah—it is with great interest that I stand to speak today in the second reading of the bill. Ngāti Pāhauwera is a confederation of hapū with historical interests in northern Hawke’s Bay. The core area of interest extends from south of Wairoa along the coastline to the Waikari River, inland from these areas towards the Maungaharuru Range, and north towards the Waiau River. The claims of Ngāti Pāhauwera include the failure of the Crown to make sure that Ngāti Pāhauwera had sufficient lands for its future needs during the process of the land alienation that began in the 1850s. By the mid - 20th century Ngāti Pāhauwera was virtually landless, and ever since has suffered economic, social, and cultural impoverishment. During the New Zealand Wars the Crown ignored warnings of a possible attack on Ngāti Pāhauwera communities at Mōhaka. When the attack occurred, the Crown provided minimum assistance to help Ngāti Pāhauwera recover from the attack on the pā and kāinga, even though the area had been left virtually defenceless because the warriors from Ngāti Pāhauwera were away with the Crown’s forces.

This bill seeks to right the wrongs of the past by recognising what has happened through an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments and an apology by the Crown to Ngāti Pāhauwera, and an acceptance by Ngāti Pāhauwera of that apology. This bill seeks to recognise the longstanding cultural and spiritual association that Ngāti Pāhauwera has in the region, through vesting Te Heru o Tūreia in Ngāti Pāhauwera, and the subsequent gift of a major portion of that area to the people of New Zealand as a historic reserve. Ngāti Pāhauwera will also retain Nakunaku as a historic reserve, and 14 other cultural redress properties will be invested in the iwi.

The bill also provides for some aspects of commercial redress to compensate Ngāti Pāhauwera for what has been lost, including authorising the transfer of five former Wairoa District Council properties to Ngāti Pāhauwera and licensed land within Mōhaka Forest, as well as a right of first refusal over Crown properties in the core area. I am confident that the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill will settle the iwi’s Treaty claims in a full and final manner. The redress provided to Ngāti Pāhauwera can never compensate it for what has been lost. I trust that the agreement reached with Ngāti Pāhauwera that is embodied in this bill will enhance the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Pāhauwera in the future.

I look forward to all these bills proceeding to the Committee stage without delay. Ngā mihi ki a koutou kua hara mai nei i te pō nei, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kei raro.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next speaker, I wish to advise the House that it is a split call between the Hon Shane Jones and the Hon Parekura Horomia.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I te tuatahi me mihi whānui atu ki ō tātou huanga, ō tātou mātua whakarauika mai ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika ki roto i “te ana o te raiona”. E kara mā koutou nō Te Tai Rāwhiti, ahakoa kōwhiti noa atu ngā marama noho tonu mai ana koutou i waenga nōki i a mātou nā reira, e kara e koa ana te ngākau. Tēnā koutou ngā kanohi pakeke, huri noa ki ngā iwi e whai pānga ana ki ēnei kerēme, meinga nei ko Ngāti Whare, Ngāti Manawa, ō tātou huanga i te taihauāuru i roto i te whare tātai o Maniapoto, huri atu ki te whitinga o te rā, Ngāti Pāhauwera, Ngati Porou, tēnā koutou. Ēhara koutou i te iwi tauhōu ki tēnei Whare. Otirā ko tāku he mihi atu ki a koutou. Tautoko hoki i te reo, atu i tō tātou Minita ki a koutou, ki a tātou, nā, te menemene mai ai koutou ki ngā Māori katoa i roto i tēnei Whare, kaua ki tā koutou kōtiro a Hēkia anakenake. Nā reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[An extensive welcome in the first instance to our relations and parents gathered here in Wellington, in “the den of the lions”. Those friends from the East Coast, you have remained there amongst us for many months, we are really pleased about that. Acknowledgments to you, the adult faces and those tribes with interests in these claims, Ngāti Whare, Ngāti Manawa, our relatives to the west in the ancestral house of Maniapoto, turning to the place where the sun rises, Ngāti Pāhauwera and Ngati Porou, greetings to you collectively. You are no strangers to this House, and I welcome you sincerely. I also endorse the sentiments expressed by our Minister to you and us collectively. So cast a smile upon all the Māori members in this House, and not just upon your girl, Hēkia, alone. Greetings to us all.]

I rise to make a short contribution. What we have ended up doing here is an unusual innovation in terms of the rules of Parliament. We have been able to conflate several bills into one session. I am told that it is an initiative known as a cognate. A cognate, as you know, is something very familiar to the Māori people because it means your blood, your whakapapa.

It is good to see that after a long period of time we are finally seeing the end of the Treaty settlement process for these particular tribes. Sir Doug Graham made his contribution. We made our contribution, and I will be the first to admit that it could have been improved upon. Dr Cullen—that peerless parliamentarian—towards the end of our time certainly sped things up, so we have got no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to expedite the claims.

I think it is important that we remind those of our mātua and supporters from the various iwi who are here this evening that there are other issues confronting you, not the least of which those who have vested interests in the ongoing administration and utilisation of rivers and waters associated. That is a big issue that stands in front of us. But please do not make an unsubstantiated, bare, political plea that Māoris own the water. Please be sophisticated enough to bring back evidence and bring back claims that bear strength that we have vested interests in the future in the rivers of Pāhauwera, and the rivers of Ngati Porou, and the rivers of Maniapoto that cannot be misconstrued or abused, as we suffered the last time when David Garrett was here and sought to make fun of the Waiwaia Accord when this legislation went through its first reading. I took a little pleasure in reminding him, after he made those foul remarks—completely gratuitous—about the Maniapoto and Tainui people, that it was not long after that that a kēhua leapt out of the depths of that water and swept him from this House. So bear that in mind; these matters of Treaty and Māori spirituality are not to be trifled with. I must, myself, remember to do as I say, and not just talk about it.

On the elements to do with Ngati Porou, we have two senior members of the Ngati Porou tribe—at least two—and a young man over there with his whakapapa from Ngati Porou. I think those of us from the north often thought that the tribe that learnt best how to deal with successive Governments was Ngati Porou, but when I look at the handsome settlement the Arawas have walked away with, they have not done too bad themselves. Unfortunately the truculent spirit that pervades the Ngāpuhi tends to keep them at the margin, but time will tell whether or not the missionary spirit of goodwill and peace will ever rise to the top of the Ngāpuhi political psyche. But that is for another night.

This is an evening when small tribes such as Ngāti Whare, Ngāti Manawa, in obscure parts of Aotearoa, Ngāti Pāhauwera with their long-vested interests in their river, and Maniapoto, one of our largest iwi, with that heroic and very rich heritage of resistance and providing, indeed, security for Te Kooti, in his time, and Tāwhiao, are making progress on this particular part of their claim, the Waipā River. So I join with my colleagues in not only wishing the supporters well but reminding them, when we take it to the next stage, please do not look for us, your Māori MPs, to uncritically support calls that we own the water, without a substantial and robust basis for us not only to prosecute that claim but to secure the endorsement of our Pākehā fellow citizens. Tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tautokotia atu ngā mihimihi ki a koe, tēnā koe. Ki te Minita mō te Mātauranga, te whanaunga e Hēkia, e mihi kau ana, tēnā koe.

[I endorse the acknowledgments to you, greetings. To the Minister of Education, the relative Hēkia, I really acknowledge you, greetings.]

I was glad that my learned colleague from the nōta did not say that Ngati Porou was obscure, because it is paradise, and I certainly do not bow from my vested interest. But in recognising that, the role that we play, I certainly want to mihi to the hard work of our pakeke and leaders of Ngati Porou, Apirana Mahuika and Co., for that hard period going through. And there have been tensions; there is no doubt about it. I know most other iwi do not have tensions and ructions, but we are honest people, we have tensions, but we get through them, and for that I certainly want to commend our mātua Api.

E mihi kau ana i a koutou o Maniapoto. E roaroa atu te kōrero mō te wai, mai i te tīmata o ngā kerēme mō te wai. E rongo atu ki te kōrero o te Shane nei mō te āhua o te wai. E mihi kau ana i a koutou. Kei a Nanaia te kōrero mō Maniapoto. I a koutou o Ngāti Whare e mihi kau ana, tēnā koutou. E pai atu ki te kite atu i a koutou. E mokemoke noa iho e kore e konei a Bill, tērā tangata e whai kaha ia tau, ia marama mō te take nei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.

[I welcome you of Maniapoto. The conversation about water since the claims for water began has been a lengthy one. I note the comments by Shane here in respect of the water. But I really acknowledge you collectively. Nanaia has the talk in regard to Maniapoto. So to you of Ngāti Whare, I acknowledge you, as well, greetings. It is wonderful to see you, but I am bereft at the same time that Bill, that man who worked hard each year and month for this matter, is no longer here. So greetings to you, collectively.]

It is good to see that Ngāti Whare have the co-management of Whirinaki State Forest with the East Coast Bay of Plenty Conservation Board, and that they get 640 hectares at the 10 percent forestry allocation is certainly great. But I do want to mention Bill Bird as one of the present leaders, even though he has passed on, because he was tenacious, he was courageous, and he stood against all sorts of things, but sadly cancer took him away, and he never saw it. At times we mention people who are not here, but Bill was a real warrior and I want to recognise that.

Ngāti Manawa, tēnā koutou. E mihi atu i a koutou e tū atu mō te take nei.

[Greetings Ngāti Manawa. I commend your stance on this matter.]

This deed was signed in December 2009, and the iwi were part of the central North Island forestry settlement negotiated by us a long period of time ago. I do want to recognise Ngāti Manawa’s efforts, the place that they have taken in these claims, and how they have come forward on it.

For Ngāti Pāhauwera, Tom Gemmell was like Bill Bird, a real warrior. And Toro Waaka, Raymond, Joe, Megan, as the Minister of Māori Affairs mentioned, Charlie Hirini, and all those ones who are not here, including Auntie Sophie Keefe—all of those great people took this down the roadway. It is a great day, and Ngāti Pāhauwera are certainly working hard. They live on the banks of that great awa, Mōhaka. And then we talk about water; it continually flows there and they have a high opinion on who owns it, what it is, and where it should be going. So I wish them all the best. In the sense of the redress, it is important and significant to them.

In relation to the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, one thing you learn is being a Hauiti person you are Ngati Porou, and being Ngati Porou you are generally Hauiti. Those things that create tensions are there, but certainly we look forward to supporting the Minister to ensure that this has a speedy passageway to finality, and that we can all celebrate with these iwi that have turned up here tonight. Tēnā koe.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): These are four very important bills. Dr Sharples has outlined the essence of the bills, but because of what I thought was an excellent contribution by Mr Jones, and again by Mr Horomia, I just want to say that each of the settlements we are talking about tonight raises an important issue concerning water. There are four rivers that are very much part and parcel of the settlements, the Mōhaka, the Rangitaiki, the Waiapū, and the Waipā, and they are all slightly different versions of a genuine and sincere effort by the Crown to involve iwi in the co-governance of those particular resources. They are different models, but I believe they are going to be successful, and that they are adapted to the particular needs of the iwi and the particular needs of the rivers concerned—more about that in the course of the Committee stage.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered these bills, it has submitted its commentary on them to the House, and I want to thank Mr Henare and his team for the very thorough examination of the bills. I want to thank other Ministers and departments involved in the process. A wide variety of people from across the political spectrum have made some very, very important contributions to these settlements over the years. I particularly want to acknowledge Mr Horomia and Mr Jones, who always put partisanship to one side, and work with this Government on these issues, which is the way it should be.

I also, briefly, just to show how bipartisan I am, want to refer to the negotiators I have been working with: Paul Swain for the Crown with Ngati Porou, and Fran Wilde for the Crown with Ngāti Pāhauwera. What is it about former Labour MPs that they make such very good Treaty negotiators? They are so pleasant to deal with when they have left this place. Some, of course, I do not think could ever change their spots, but others are such very nice people. In fact, it is an indication of how nice they are that—again, to show how bipartisan I am; too bipartisan for my own good—I have asked Mr Rick Barker, an excellent fellow, to work for me with Mr Swain in Taranaki.

Hon Shane Jones: Just a small matter of income.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Oh no. It is the quality of the contribution they make. So there we have it. A lot of good work has been done on these bills. Let us get down to the detail in the Committee stage.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe. Tēnei e tautoko ana ngā mihi, ki ngā iwi i tae mai nei ki te whakarongo ki a mātau nei kōrero. Nō reira ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you. I endorse the acknowledgments to the tribes who have arrived here to listen to our speeches. Hence, greetings to you all, greetings, greetings.]

This second reading opportunity is just a brief chance for members of the Māori Affairs Committee to report back on some key aspects of what they heard during the select committee. Can I say first of all on my part that although I am not a current member of the Māori Affairs Committee, we were hosted with absolute hospitality and respect. The role of the select committee I think is a difficult one, because there are great expectations placed on what the select committee should be doing at the point of hearings when we go out into your community. So can I say to Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Whare, Ngāti Pāhauwera, Ngati Porou, and Ngā Wai o Maniapoto koutou katoa, for your kind hospitality in hosting us the gratitude is ours.

Can I just point to some comments for each of the settlements—firstly, Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare. Really, I think the things that stood out for me were issues around representation on the Rangitaiki River Forum. When we heard evidence from Ngāti Haku Patuheuheu and about their claims to the Rangitaiki, and considered issues around the Rangitaiki River Forum, we were confident that there were enabling provisions so that, at such a time when Ngāti Haku Patuheuheu wanted to be a part of the forum, the model was there to enable that to happen.

Secondly, on the fisheries protocol as stated in the settlement, we were confident that this was an opportunity for both Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare to have a proactive and ongoing role in the fisheries of their river, and we recommended no change. And, thirdly, on the substantive issue of their maunga, Tāwhiuau—and this is probably something to highlight to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—the select committee members were quite mindful that if another Treaty settlement impinged on Ngāti Manawa’s interest in Tāwhiuau, then this was a significant matter that the Minister would have to pay attention to so that those rights were not infringed upon. I wanted to highlight those issues in the second reading, because they will be matters that may need to be considered if the Crown thinks it is going to have other settlements impinging upon its interest.

I want to go to Ngāti Pāhauwera briefly. Probably two issues stood out there. Firstly, we did have representations to the select committee that contested the mandate of Pāhauwera. Having considered at length the aspects around the Pāhauwera mandate, the select committee was confident—absolutely confident—in the mandate that was expressed by Pāhauwera and their ability to get to the point of settlement, and we did not consider any substantive change to the legislation on this front.

This is an important question, I should mention, for all Treaty settlements, because often claimants and cross-claimants come to the select committee table thinking that we can change issues around this substantially. It is very difficult to do so. I want to commend Te Ururoa Flavell, who chaired the committee for the hearing of this bill, and I think he managed the process quite well, and to a positive outcome.

The definition of “Ngāti Pāhauwera”, and the interests of the Ngāi Tahu hapū, was one of those issues where we really found ourselves conflicted, and the same thing arose in the Ngati Porou settlement. Members of the select committee did not think it was beholden upon us to adjudicate over whakapapa within iwi. So on that basis, although we understand and heard the full representations of Ngāi Tahu hapū, we accept that for the purposes of this settlement the definition of “Ngāti Pāhauwera” in the bill stands.

I want to move to a substantive lot of hearings that we had on the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. I want to pay tribute to those who got this far, having heard the number of cross-claimants who came to the hearings. You think you have got problems; come to my place. We have got all sorts of things happening back home.

But can I say that one of the things that stood out in the Ngati Porou claim settlement hearings at the select committee level was that there was this high sense of urgency from many claimants that they did not have the ability to have their historical grievances aired. There is an innovation in this particular settlement around an airing-of-grievances process that I understand is being proposed.

Again, one of the issues that really stood out substantially in this particular settlement is that people need the opportunity to have their histories told and captured in some shape and form, so that they are on the historical record. Again, we were not in a position—and we do not feel as select committee members that we should have been in the position—to adjudicate over whakapapa. That is solely for Ngati Porou to determine. But the process, in itself, if there is the opportunity through the airing-of-grievances part of this particular settlement that histories can be heard, told, and captured, should be considered as a positive part of giving a complete picture.

I certainly want to pay tribute to Api Mahuika, who actually personally bore the brunt of a lot of criticisms at the select committee table. I can say from some personal reflection that the position he holds is not an easy one. It is thankless, and you bear a lot of responsibility with little gratitude afterwards. But can I say that the dignity with which the claim was put to the select committee had a strong bearing on my view that this is the best opportunity for Ngati Porou going forward and for the generations to come. What stood out even more was that there was a firm focus on this being an opportunity for the next generation to move forward.

Finally, I come back to my home town in a sense, and that is Ngā Wai o Maniapoto. I want to, in this second reading, highlight two particular aspects—maybe three. First is the interests of Raukawa in Wharepūhunga. They came to the select committee with a representation that the select committee should change or broaden the reach of Raukawa in terms of the Wharepūhunga. The select committee took that on board but did not think that any change to the legislation was necessary. However, I would urge the Minister to seek some confirmation from the Office of Treaty Settlements that the memorandum of understanding that has been reached between Raukawa and Maniapoto will be confirmed before the third reading, because this will be a positive part of ensuring that both Raukawa and Maniapoto interests in the Waipā will be clearly stated.

Second is the issue of the clean-up fund being added to the Waikato River Authority. It is not the outcome that Maniapoto was seeking, but is an opportunity to have issues of clean-up addressed. But the real issue there will be Waikato and Maniapoto assuring themselves that the ongoing aspects of clean-up of the upper river catchment are a matter yet to be negotiated with the Crown, and should be a matter supported by Waikato in the overall interests of having a clean Waipā, so that we get a clean Waikato River. In terms of the Lower Waipā catchment, I am confident that with a bit of common sense and a bit of time both Waikato and Maniapoto will sort out its interests and how to manage aspects in the Lower Waipā catchment.

Overall, this feels like a rushed process, but it is only the second readings. I am confident that in the third reading of the legislation members will be able to focus on those settlements that they want to highlight, in terms of the opportunities they provide for the people going forward. Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa, tēnā tātou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. Me whakarāpopoto i taku kōrero i te mea kua oti kē i a au te kōrero mō tētahi wāhanga. Ēngari, kua oti kē te wāhi ki te Minita. Ko te wāhi ki a au ko te Pāti Māori me te kī atu, ka tautoko ake i tēnei o ngā pire kei pōhēhē koutou, kāre te Pāti Māori i te tautoko i te karanga. Ā, ēngari paku kōrero. Tuatahi hai whaiwhai haere i te āhuatanga o te kōrero a te Hōnore Parekura Horomia, e tangi ana te ngākau mō te Bill Bird rā, tērā o ngā tāngata i kaha ki te kawe i tēnei o ngā take ki mua i te aroaro o ngā momo Minita. Kāo. Ki mua i te aroaro o ngā Minita i ngā tau kua hipa ake. E tangi ana te ngākau ki a ia, otirā, ki a rātau. Tērā Māori, kātahi te tangata māia ko tērā.

Me wero tonu i te Hōnore Shane Jones. E kī, e kī? He wāhi obscure a Minginui, he wāhi obscure a Murupara. Come on. Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Whare māku tēnā kōrero i whakatika.

E tika ana te kōrero a wētahi atu pērā i a Nanaia Mahuta, ē, ko ētahi o ngā iwi ka titiro mai ki te Kāwanatanga, ki te komiti whāiti, te select committee, ki te kī mai mā koutou, mā te Kāwanatanga, mā te Karauna rānei e whakatikatika ngā kōrero ā-whakapapa. Ko tāku ko te kī atu e kāo, mā ngā iwi tērā e whakatika, kaua mā te Whare Pāremata. Ko ētahi ka kī, ka noho me kī, tata nei, whanaunga nei ēngari, kei te kī atu ki te Kāwanatanga, nō mātau tēnei whenua, me kōrero ki a mātau mō te whakahoki mai i wā mātau whenua. E kāo, mā ngā iwi anō rā tērā take e kōrero. Nō reira, he nui ngā kōrero i puta hei whaiwhai haere i tana kōrero.

Nō mātau te waimarie kia tae atu ki a koutou Ngāti Pāhauwera ki tā koutou marae ka mutu, ki Tikitiki. Ahakoa i wepua au e wētahi ēngari, he pai tonu te noho ki waenganui i ērā momo take, he akoranga nui ki a au, ā-tiamana nei. Engari, nōku te waimarie kia tae atu ki reira ki waenganui i a koutou. I te pērā anō ki a koutou o Ngāti Maniapoto, i tā mātau taenga atu ki tērā o ngā whare, te Tokanganui-a-Noho. Ka mutu, i roto i te rohe o Te Waiariki, ko Ngāti Whare me Ngāti Manawa, e noho tata nei nā runga i te āhuatanga o te ara whanaunga, arā, ko Te Wharepākau rāua Tangiharuru. Ko koutou anō koutou. Nō reira, ko tāku noa ake he kī atu, ka pai, ka pai. Akiākina, akiākina ngā pire nei kia eke ki te taumata e tika ana.

Nō reira kāti, koinei te kōrero a te Pāti Māori, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kua tata eke, kua tata eke. Kia hoki mai ki te wāhanga whakamutunga, ka āhua whakatōroangia pea ngā kōrero mā te rua tekau meneti. Hoi anō, tērā kōrero tērā. Kia ora tātau.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and greetings once again to us all. I will shorten my address, as I have already spoken at length about a part of the legislation. The part relating to the Minister has been covered already, so my part is to talk about the Māori Party, and say that we endorse this legislation, in case you wonder whether the Māori Party supports it, although the call is a short one. In the first instance, and to follow up the tenor of the sentiments expressed by the Hon Parekura Horomia, the heart mourns the passing of Bill Bird, a man who worked hard to bring this legislation before the various kinds of Ministers; not true—Ministers in past years. The heart weeps for him, and indeed for them. That Māori, what a courageous one he was.

I continue to challenge the Hon Shane Jones when he asserts that Minginui and Murupara are obscure places. Come on! How true is that? Get it right. Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, I will correct that assertion.

Some of the statements by other speakers are absolutely correct, such as those of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. Some tribes are looking at the Government, at the select committee process, and saying: leave it up to the Government or the Crown to rectify any issues about genealogy. I say no—tribes are responsible for that, and not the House of Parliament. Some very close relatives are saying to the Government: this land is ours, talk to us about giving it back. Not so, that sort of issue is for the tribes to deal to. So a lot of talk has emerged to follow up her assertion.

It was our good fortune getting to you, Ngāti Pāhauwera, to your marae, and then moving on to Tikitiki. Even though I might have taken a bit of a whipping from some there, it was still good to be amongst you in those kinds of issues, and a huge learning curve for me as chairman. But I still considered myself lucky to be there amongst you. It was like that with you, Ngāti Maniapoto, when we arrived at Tokanganui-a-Noho, that ancestral house of all ancestral houses. So to the region of Te Waiariki, to Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa, who are closely related through Te Wharepākau and Tangiharuru. You are really one and the same. So I simply want to say: well done, great. Move and urge these bills along to a level most fitting for them.

Enough for now. Congratulations and well done from the Māori Party. It is almost there, nearly. When we come back for the final part we may extend our address by 20 minutes. Who knows what will happen. Congratulations to us all.]

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I would like to acknowledge Ngati Porou in the House. After all, Sir Apirana Ngata would, I imagine, be very, very proud. With each settlement we come together and we cast away that which has divided us, and in settlement we embrace that which unites us—our land, our water, our people, our wairua. With each settlement we grow together as a country, as a nation, and as New Zealanders we all have a vested interest in the success of these bills.

Now, as Ngāti Maniapoto, I must also declare an interest. I am one of that sprawling brood of Ormsbys, and I am bursting with joy that the sacred water of my iwi is to be protected and nurtured, to be cleaned, to honour the wairua. Recognising and addressing the grievances of all before us tonight is paramount. It has taken New Zealand many years to reach this point. Again, I acknowledge all of you—all of us—who are here today, because we represent so much more. Together, we represent the many who have gone before us, the many who cannot be here today. I look forward to working at the Committee stage to ensure that the full intent of these settlements is achieved. As it has taken so long to get to this point, and as there is yet a small way to go, I do not wish to take more of this time, but I endorse on behalf of New Zealand First the progress of these bills in this Whare. Thank you.

Bills read a second time.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2)

Procedure

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek the leave of the House for the second reading, Committee stage, and third reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) to be taken as one question.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am trying to assist the House. I do not think it has been called as it needs to be for the Committee stage and the third reading to be part of the same debate.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I concur with that. The Hon Trevor Mallard sought leave of the House for those two debates to be taken as one.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Three debates.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Three debates. So it is the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

Hon Trevor Mallard: We have already agreed to that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We can dispense with the Committee stage by leave of the House? We can do that by leave of the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: We’ve already done it.

Second Reading

Third Reading

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time and a third time.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I confirm that the Labour Party supports the passage of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) in the manner that has been agreed to by the House. I particularly want to record that this bill has received exhaustive scrutiny by the Government Administration Committee. It has made several amendments, which I think improve the bill and make sure that it is as a Statutes Amendment Bill should be—uncontroversial and dealing with matters that are technical. So on that basis the Labour Opposition will support the motion.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Charles Chauvel is quite correct. An exhaustive amount of scrutiny goes on with these bills. In fact, the bill would not be in the House if all parties did not agree to all the provisions in these bills. But this bill affects 20 different bills in this case. So I would seek leave that at the conclusion of the third reading debate the bill is split into its appropriate bills as would have normally been the case should we have taken a more exhaustive amount of the House’s time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Further leave, Mr Speaker, that the bill be read by the Clerk as a Statutes Amendment Bill rather than having to read out all those different third readings.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that that be agreed to. It is agreed.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The question is?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say aye, to the contrary no, the ayes have it.

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) read a second time.

20 bills formerly part of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3)

First Reading

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I am sorry. I just want to point out that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) has been the subject of exhaustive consultation between the parties, and on that basis the Labour Party is supporting the motion.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.