Thursday, 8 March 2012

Thursday, 8 March 2012

Thursday, 8 March 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, 20 March the Government will look to progress a number of bills on the Order Paper, including the Committee stages of the Search and Surveillance Bill, the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill, the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill, and the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Monetary Policy Statement, March 2012

1. MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Reserve Bank today issued its Monetary Policy Statement for March 2012. The bank notes the domestic economy is showing signs of recovery, household spending appears to have picked up over the past few months, and a recovery of building activity is under way. The Reserve Bank expects growth in the near-term to remain reasonably modest, but this is projected to gather pace as the Canterbury rebuild accelerates and underlying investment recovers. The Monetary Policy Statement projects annual real production GDP growth of 1.8 percent, 3.1 percent, 3.7 percent, and 2.4 percent for the March years of 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 respectively. This is slightly stronger than the bank predicted in its December Monetary Policy Statement.

Maggie Barry: What is the Reserve Bank’s assessment of the global economic situation, and how might that impact on New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank says the risk of a significant near-term deterioration in global economic conditions has moderated since its December Monetary Policy Statement. However, risks remain. It is projecting reasonable growth by our main trading partners, and that is broadly consistent with its December Monetary Policy Statement and Treasury’s recent forecasts. Australia and China are expected grow at around 3.3 percent and 8.5 percent a year respectively over the next 3 years. This will help underpin growth in this country, with our trade and investment moving towards these fast-growing parts of the world.

Maggie Barry: What is the Reserve Bank’s outlook for New Zealand’s current account position, and how does this compare with the position in the 3 years to 2008?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank projects the current account deficit to widen moderately over the next 4 years as imports and inward investment pick up and the Canterbury rebuild gathers momentum. The Reserve Bank forecasts the deficit to be 4.3 percent, 4.1 percent, 4.8 percent, and 5.1 percent of GDP for the March years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 respectively. The good news is that these deficits are significantly smaller than the average of more than 8 percent of GDP in each of the 3 years to 2008.

Hon David Parker: Does the Monetary Policy Statement show a lower growth forecast compared with Treasury’s lowered Budget Policy Statement last week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, the Reserve Bank Monetary Policy Statement predicts a slightly lower nominal GDP increase, because of the expected lower inflation that the Reserve Bank is predicting over the next few years.

Te Puni Kōkiri—Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Is he satisfied with the financial management of the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund, administered by Te Puni Kōkiri?

Hon David Cunliffe: Nice tie!

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Nice tie? I thank the member for his question. I guess he has given up on local government—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Sorry. Yes, absolutely, Mr Peters, I am satisfied, given that the Minister for Whānau Ora empowers Māori and is tūturu Māori.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Congratulations, by the way.

Hon Tau Henare: Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the financial management of the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund when those handing out the funds are also receiving them?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am happy to report to the member, as the responsible Minister, that I was assured by Audit New Zealand’s 2010-11 audit report on the ministry, which rated the management control environment as good and our financial information systems controls as very good.

Hon Tau Henare: What reports has he received on Te Puni Kōkiri’s financial management?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Well, I did receive that report on the audit, but we also had a report on the fund itself, the one in question, the “WIIE” fund, by KPMG, which was an independent audit that we sought, and it goes like this: “The systems and processes to administer the WIIE fund were effective in complying with policy direction set by the Government. Te Puni Kōkiri front-line staff are working well with whānau making inquiries about the fund and Te Puni Kōkiri’s contract information and monitoring system for the WIIE fund is effective.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware of a serious conflict of interest involving members of Ngā Kaitiaki o Ngāti Kauwhata administering funds from the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund to members of their own whānau in Ngā Kaitiaki o Ngāti Kauwhata?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am not aware of that. If the member would like to write to me, in triplicate, I would be happy to look at that. I can advise him that everyone is contracted through a group—

Hon David Parker: You do have to read things three times to understand them.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Ha, ha! So it will be replied to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister explain to the House, in triplicate, if he likes, exactly how the $1,400 spent on food by Ngā Kaitiaki o Ngāti Kauwhata could possibly have contributed to “building whānau knowledge, skills, and capabilities”, as Whānau Ora boasts?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Mainly it was intelligent food that they ate and it gave them a lot of activity there. The reality is that food is part of any Māori gathering where you are doing things to progress the whānau, and you should know that, unless Ngāti Wai have different customs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, he suggested that you should know that, and that really is wrong, and the second thing is that he then attacked my iwi, which is famous for—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, order! The member is quite right; the Minister should not have said “you should know that,”, but members should not raise that; that is up to the Speaker.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister. Is this a further supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Mr Speaker. I want to seek leave to table a document.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a document.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: These are minutes and information from Te Puni Kōkiri behind the questions of today.

Mr SPEAKER: So the document is from Te Puni Kōkiri?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is right.

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

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

Economy—International Liabilities

3. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the projected growth, if any, of New Zealand’s international liabilities under this Government’s policies, and what are the components of those liabilities?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: According to the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update issued in October last year, New Zealand’s net international liabilities are forecast to increase from 73 percent of GDP as at September 2011 to just over 77 percent of GDP by 2016. One of the main components of this is an expected increase in imports and investment from offshore connected with the Canterbury rebuild. The relatively high exchange rate combined with weaker world demand for our export goods and services are also factors predicted in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. In contrast to the period of high current account deficits in the mid-2000s, where net international liabilities hit 83 percent of GDP, household and domestic saving is now increasing. Another positive factor is the Government’s commitment to return to Budget surplus by 2014-15.

Hon David Parker: Do the projections of the current account deficit, which the Reserve Bank projects will rise back up to 5 percent, and Treasury projects will increase back up to 6.9 percent, show that the current account deficit problem remains unsolved?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. Both those numbers are predicted to increase, as the member said, by both the Reserve Bank and Treasury, but to nowhere near the levels they were at in the 3 years prior to this Government coming into office, where they peaked at an average of 8 percent—the balance of payments deficit of GDP. So even though it is predicted to rise, it is largely because of imports associated with the Canterbury rebuild, and it is not projected to return to previous levels.

Hon David Parker: Is the current account deficit projected for every year of the forecast period under his Government’s policies funded by selling more assets to foreigners and borrowing more money from overseas?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Obviously, the current account deficit is funded by a net increase in international liabilities, and they can be across a range of factors. It is difficult to isolate any single one.

Todd McClay: How have New Zealand’s net international liabilities been tracking over the last 10 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a very interesting question. In March 2002 New Zealand’s net international liabilities were 67 percent of GDP. By 2008 they had deteriorated to around 83 percent of GDP, which is quite high by global standards. This was the product of some misdirected Government policies that encouraged borrowing, spending, and housing speculation. It left the economy lopsided and the current account deficit around 8 percent of GDP for the years 2006 to 2008. Since 2008 New Zealand’s net international liabilities have improved significantly to 73 percent of GDP as of September 2011. Although they are forecast to increase over the next 4 years for the reason I outlined in my answer to the primary question, they will still be well below the levels of 2008.

Hon David Parker: Does not the fact that the Minister acknowledges that net international liabilities from here on will continue to go up until the end of the forecast period, combined with the current account deficit rising, show that we have not cured the fundamental imbalances in the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member confuses a relative position with an absolute position. So relatively they will be increasing, but in an absolute sense they are much lower than they were when that Government left office. So he is in there digging himself further into a hole, and showing that actually the previous Government’s attitude to foreign debt and international liabilities was considerably worse than the current Government’s.

Hon David Parker: Why is it his Government’s policy to encourage the sale of productive farmland and shares in our power companies to foreign buyers and to encourage more overseas borrowing, to fund our current account deficit, rather than consider other policies that address the fundamental imbalances in our economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have to say that is a little rich coming from the Opposition, because over Labour’s term in office it boosted net international liabilities significantly, and showed absolutely no concern about that. The reality is that there was a complete misrepresentation in the member’s question—at least one—and that was the suggestion that we are seeking to sell assets overseas, which of course is not the case whatsoever. The important point is that the only way you can improve that position is to improve the position of New Zealand companies competing in international markets, and that means making those companies more competitive, and that means the sorts of policies this Government is doing to improve things, like amending the Resource Management Act to allow resource use and encouraging the capital markets to keep Government debt down to get the Government books back into balance—all things off the top of my head that the current Labour Party Opposition opposes.

Freshwater Management, Stock Access—Fencing of Lakes and Rivers

4. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Is water quality in New Zealand being negatively affected by livestock in rivers and lakes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes. That is why I welcome the progress in getting more rivers and lakes fenced. Just this last weekend the Prime Minister announced at the Bluegreens Forum another $8 million of funding for improving water quality. Included in this package is a one-third contribution for farmers to fence 200 kilometres of New Zealand’s most polluted river and its tributaries in the Manawatū.

Eugenie Sage: Is it acceptable that as of June 2012 only two regional councils will prohibit intensively farmed livestock from accessing rivers and lakes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do think there is a real challenge for our regional councils to meet their requirements under the new national policy statement that this Government put in place last year that requires councils to set limits, and included in that is the issue of fencing waterways. Further to that, the Land and Water Forum, which is a very constructive engagement of a broad range of groups, is due to report back to the Government this month on the other steps that are required to ensure that we properly do set limits in the measures to protect water quality.

Eugenie Sage: Given the ad hoc way in which regional councils try to control water quality degradation from stock access, will he not provide national consistency by implementing a national environmental standard to keep livestock out of rivers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am open-minded about using the additional tool of a national environmental standard, but my concern more generally around water quality is that there have been highly polarised arguments between different groups. I think the fact that we have 58 groups engaging in the Land and Water Forum and actually coming to agreement at a national level about the measures that are required, in my view is the constructive way forward. This month I am due to receive the report on the very issue that the member is rightly concerned about.

Eugenie Sage: If the Land and Water Forum does recommend a national environmental standard on riparian fencing for stock, will he implement that, or will it be like the national policy statement that the forum recommended, which will be substantially different from that which the forum recommended?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I must set the record straight for the member. The Government did respond consistently with the Land and Water Forum around the national policy statement, except in the area where the Crown Law Office advised us that we would be acting unlawfully. It is not my habit, as a Minister, to do that knowingly. It is a hypothetical question about the way in which we will respond to the Land and Water Forum, but I want to reassure the member that this Government is firmly committed to that collaborative process, and, providing those measures are practicable, then quite clearly we would want to advance the forum’s recommendations.

Jacqui Dean: What reports has the Minister received on progress in improving water quality in Canterbury, before and after the appointment of commissioners?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have received reports, and they show that in the period prior to 2009 Canterbury had one of the worst records of compliance with resource consents, and in fact it was deteriorating in the previous year. I also note that in the year since commissioners were appointed, compliance rates for resource consents improved to 59 percent in the first year and again to 65 percent in the year later. In fact, it is interesting to note that the biggest improvement in compliance rates of resource consents of all the councils in New Zealand has been since we appointed commissioners in Canterbury.

Hone Harawira: Does the Minister believe that the sale of New Zealand power companies to overseas interests before Māori claims to fresh water have been settled will have a negative impact on water quality in New Zealand, particularly given that those overseas interests are likely to be more concerned about the value of their investment than the quality of the water in our rivers and lakes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I would make is that there is no evidence as to the nature of the ownership affecting the way in which those property owners affect water quality. In fact, we should note that CraFarm Group, which has been the subject of significant controversy, was a New Zealand - owned company and had an appalling record in terms of its management of fresh water. Can I further reassure the member that the Government is very committed to engagement with the Iwi Leaders Group around water, and to improving the involvement that iwi have in the management of New Zealand’s water resources. I think that is shown by our commitment in the Rotorua lakes, on the Waikato River, and in the further four programmes we announced at the weekend, where iwi are actively involved in water clean-ups.

Eugenie Sage: Given that industry has already taken some initiative to promote the fencing of streams, why will he not back that up by implementing a legally binding national environmental standard under the Resource Management Act to keep farmed deer, farmed cattle, and dairy cows out of our waterways?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I said to the member earlier, the Government is open-minded about a national environment standard. The tension that I draw to the member’s attention is that there is a disadvantage to a national environment standard when you have got very geographically different areas around the country. Sometimes it is better to have stuff being determined regionally and locally; on the other hand, there is the argument for just one set of rules nationwide. We will be listening very closely to the advice from the Land and Water Forum on what the best way forward is, but can I reassure the member this Government is firmly committed to improving New Zealand’s freshwater management and quality.

Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table two photographs emailed to me by Northland citizen Millan Ruka of stock beside the Wairua River, and another Northland river.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table these photographs. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Prison, Wiri—Public-private Partnership

5. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made on the proposal to build a public-private prison at Wiri?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): Today the Minister of Finance and I announced that the Government has chosen a consortium of companies to design, finance, build, operate, and maintain the new 960-bed prison at Wiri. Construction will start in the second half of this year, once the 25-year contract has been finalised. The prison is expected to open in 2015. The new prison at Wiri will help meet growing demand for prisoner accommodation in Auckland. The new prison not only will get better results but also is excellent value for the taxpayers.

Dr Cam Calder: What are the advantages of using a public-private partnership to build and operate the prison at Wiri?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This is a great deal for the taxpayers, because the maximum cost of the contract is capped at a level equivalent to 10 percent less than procuring the prison through traditional means, and the contract with the provider will have strong performance incentives ensuring we receive a superior service to that provided by publicly run prisons, or we pay a lower price. The provider will need to achieve lower recidivism rates than the average for publicly run prisons to receive incentive payments. It will also face financial penalties if it fails to meet short-term rehabilitation and reintegration measures.

Hone Harawira: What reports has she seen regarding the increased recidivism rates amongst Native Americans in public-private prisons in the United States, and can she tell the House what support the Māori Party has given for public-private prisons like the one at Wiri that are expected to follow the same trends?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In answer to the first part of that question, no, but I would dispute the member’s assertion. Actually, this contract that we are talking about today will take a fundamentally different approach. It is strongly focused on results, and particularly focused on results for Māori offenders, and we are requiring the contractor to provide better results than the State system. This approach of incentivising a contractor to focus on results is beyond the immediate scope of the service, like recidivism. This is an international first.

Charles Chauvel: Supplementary question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called Charles Chauvel.

Charles Chauvel: What are the locations around New Zealand of the existing State-owned prison units that she described today as “very old and coming to the end of their viable life” and that “will need to close”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No prisons will need to close as a direct result of the decision announced today. However, it is well known that some of our prisons are very old. Some of them were built in the 19th century and are coming to the end of their useful life. I am not going to give specific locations—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very direct question. I asked the Minister not about which prisons were going to close but about which existing State-owned and State-run prison units that she described today as “very old and coming to the end of their viable life” and that “will need to close”, and I do not think the Minister is in a position to refuse to give that information.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. That was indeed the question he asked. The Minister should either answer it or declare that it is not in the public interest to do so, but that was a very straight question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been raised.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think that when a Minister stands up and attempts to give some context to the questioner’s question—in other words, not dismissing it but accepting it as a valid question—but then goes on to say “I am not going to release that today.”, it is reasonable to assume that there is a good public interest requirement being met in not answering that question directly.

Charles Chauvel: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need to hear any more. If the Minister is indicating that she believes that it is not in the public interest to answer that question, that is the end of the matter.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If I had been allowed to finish, I would have said that we are obliged to carry out consultations with staff, and I do not wish to pre-empt that.

Grant Robertson: But you just thought you’d say it this morning.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: And I did say today publicly that an announcement would be made soon.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, that still does not address the question, which was phrased deliberately and directly and independently of any need to consult with the staff, because the Minister’s statement, which I will seek leave to table, identifies the clear fact that there are units that need to close—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has heard the Minister’s full answer there, and I think that has to be accepted. The Minister is saying that, in her opinion, it is not in the public interest to name any such units prior to consultation with those involved in, I believe, operational staffing of those units. That is a perfectly reasonable answer. The member can seek leave to table documents—that is fine—but that is a perfectly reasonable answer.

Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry—Implications of Proposed Changes

6. Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will proposed changes to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade undermine its ability to carry out its role in promoting New Zealand’s trade, security and consular interests?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: No. The proposals for change put forward by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s senior management are just that: they are proposals. The Minister is aware that some staff hold the view that some aspects of the proposals could impact adversely on New Zealand’s representational interests overseas, so the Minister has therefore stated that he and the Government will carefully examine the proposals in parallel with staff consultation, to ensure that no initiatives having any adverse impacts are adopted.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the Minister’s response to this cable from his Ambassador to Argentina, dated 2 March, which describes his Government’s proposal to cut his staff from 11 to four as “Armageddon-like” and utterly “unsustainable”, and says that the lack of staff will stop him carrying out core duties like pursuing a free-trade agreement with the three countries he represents New Zealand in, plus Brazil—a huge trade bloc?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I have already indicated to the House, the Minister is aware that some ministry staff hold the view that some of the proposals could impact on New Zealand’s capacity to advance its diplomatic interests. For that reason the Government is carefully considering the proposals. Initiatives that are judged to have the potential to impact negatively on New Zealand’s diplomatic interests will not be entertained by the Minister.

Hon Phil Goff: When senior ambassadors like those in Argentina and Singapore are all telling him, on the record, that the slash-and-burn cuts will result in “a major reduction in … [New Zealand’s] foreign policy effort”, will he listen to them, or will he just get his chief executive officer to send out instructions to all ambassadors that they are not to express their concerns in cables to him, as happened yesterday?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: My advice to that member is to listen very carefully to answers, because if he had listened to the previous answer he would have heard me say, on behalf of the Minister, that he will be listening very carefully to those members of the diplomatic community who do have concerns. They are proposals for change. He must listen to answers.

Hon Phil Goff: If the Minister is telling the House now that he wants to listen to them, why were ambassadors told yesterday—instructed—not to express their concerns to him in cables?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am not sure what instructions were issued, but I would have thought that if such an instruction was issued it was very good, because it would end up in the malignant hands of that member.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Chris Finlayson will—[Interruption] Order! There will be no more interjection. The Hon Chris Finlayson will get to his feet and withdraw and apologise for that last totally unacceptable comment.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Phil Goff: In the light of the shambles this is now becoming, does he now agree—[Interruption] Shall I wait for them to stop?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There will be some silence, but the member must recognise that if he makes inflammatory comments in a question, there will be a reaction: there will be noise.

Hon Phil Goff: In the light of the responses he is getting, does he now agree with this comment: “Few problems are solved by significant reorganisations—in fact, many more tend to be created. It is easy to underestimate the amount of energy and inspiration soaked up by institutional change as well as the loss of personal and institutional knowledge.”, that being a quote from Mr Key talking to the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA) in September 2008?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister and I would totally agree with everything the Prime Minister says—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s what yes men do.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —but I would say this yet again, Mr Peters: the Minister is aware that some ministry staff hold the view that some of the proposals could impact on New Zealand’s capacity to advance its diplomatic interests. For that reason the Government is carefully considering those proposals. Initiatives that are judged to have the potential to impact negatively on New Zealand’s diplomatic interests will not be entertained by the Minister.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table a speech from Mr John Key to the PSA congress on 24 September 2008.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! These speeches are all readily available to members.

Women on Boards—State Sector Target

7. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: What commitment is the Government willing to make to increase the number of women on State sector boards?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister of Women’s Affairs): Today, on International Women’s Day, I can remind members of the Government’s campaign commitment at the last election to increase the percentage of women on State sector boards to 45 percent by 2014. International evidence shows a positive correlation between women in leadership and corporate performance, so there are sound reasons to strive for this. More women in governance will help build a better future for women, their families, and New Zealand.

Louise Upston: Why has the Government chosen this target for State sector boards?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The number of women on State sector boards has remained around 41 to 42 percent for the last 7 years. The Government wants a challenging but achievable target. This is just that, but it will be challenging. In order to achieve 45 percent, nearly 50 percent of all new appointments over the next years will need to be women. This is not an easy target, but with the commitment of this Government and the help of my colleagues it is a realistic and achievable goal.

Dr Megan Woods: Why has she dropped the target for women on State sector boards down to 45 percent from the previous target of 50 percent, and why is she promoting just 10 percent as being the target for private sector boards?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Our Government has not had a stated objective of 50 percent. We believe that 45 percent is realistic and achievable. I would say to that member that if simply setting a target of 50 percent meant that it would happen, then the previous Labour Government may well have tried to do that but it did not achieve it. It sat between 41 and 42 percent for the last 7 years.

Christchurch, Recovery—Progress

8. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with the rate of progress of the Christchurch earthquake recovery?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I am satisfied there is progress on the recovery, but I will always be impatient for that progress to be more speedy.

Denis O’Rourke: What is the Minister’s response to the subject of an email received by me from a Christchurch homeowner in the orange zone, which includes these words: “This farce continues to puzzle the residents and many independent experts who cannot fathom the continuing delay.”, and “The Englebert Humperdinck song ‘Please Release Me, Let Me Go’ has never been more apt.”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The email was clearly written to the member and he is quoting from it, I hope, accurately. What I think he is expressing is the frustration that some people have. There are 658 or so homes still left in the orange zone, and there are about 2,500 in the white zone. I have always said that we are moving as quickly as possible to get a sound decision for those people. In the end, you are talking about what for most will be their whole-of-life asset—the one asset that they accumulate the most during their lives—so you cannot deal with that in any trite fashion. I have also made it clear that as we come to the end of the process the decisions become more difficult, because some of the more obvious damage is not so obvious. But I have also indicated that we want to have most of those decisions made by the middle of this year.

Denis O’Rourke: What actions will the Minister take to more effectively communicate with Christchurch residents on the future of their land and homes?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the communication, despite the criticism from those who are political opponents of the Government, has been adequate. I think that the fact of the matter is that it does not matter how many times you tell someone something, they will often not want to take on board the message. The message here is we are doing our best on behalf of those residents whose properties are so badly damaged.

Denis O’Rourke: I seek leave of the House to table correspondence sent to me by a Christchurch resident, stating that the song “Please Release Me, Let Me Go” has never been more apt in regard to the Minister’s handling of the quake recovery.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Denis O’Rourke: I seek leave of the House to table the lyrics of the song—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The House will come to order, or some National backbench members will be in trouble, like—I thank members. That is totally unnecessary.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Has he seen the letter from the Parklands action group about the serious insurance implications its members are facing, with one saying that if they have to rebuild on that site, they cannot guarantee insurance; another saying that some areas will not be able to be rebuilt for 4 years or more; one saying they can guarantee insurance only for that customer, which means they can never sell their property without guarantee of insurance; and, of course, the other one, which the Minister will be familiar with, which is the guarantee for only 2 years’ cover, which was the IAG deal for the AMI sale? And what is his reply?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In the case of Parklands, post the seismic events of 23 December, we have been conducting a review there. We have had discussions with that group, and they have accepted that we are going to need to take a little more time to make a proper decision. All of the factors that are in that letter, and many others, are matters that are part of that ongoing consideration.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Has he received a report from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on the recent meeting it held with Brooklands residents who want information about why they were red-zoned; and will he bring the Prime Minister back to Brooklands, as he did on 12 September 2010, as the community would now like them to do?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am aware that there has been a discussion with the Brooklands community by people in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. The member points out one of the problems that you do get in these situations—that is, here is a community that has been made red, and there are some people in that community who want to go back to being green. The member speaking before quoted the song “Please Release Me”—people who are orange who want to go red and will not want to go green. It is a very, very complex situation. I am disappointed that there were not more questions on that at the select committee hearing yesterday.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that I asked him was about the Brooklands residents who wanted the information about why they were red-zoned. It was not a question about the correctness of the decision; it was about why the decision had been made in their case, and they have asked the Prime Minister and the Minister to come back and explain it to them. That was the question I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the question had more than one part to it, and the Minister certainly responded to the first part of the question about Brooklands residents. I accept that he probably did not say why they had been red-zoned, but he may not have that information with him today, because the primary question did not indicate that the focus would be in that exact area. If the Minister had any information on why they were red-zoned, it would be helpful, but I do not expect—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think it is important for the House to hear that the information or the criteria by which the decisions are made have been published on the website for quite some time. In essence, that land is no longer capable of sustaining residential occupation and the infrastructure that is required for successful residential occupation. It does not matter how much the member might like to say that she knows better; that is the advice the Government got from its engineers and the advice that we have acted on. In the end the choice is there for people in Brooklands to either sell to the Government their whole property, or sell to the Government just their land and deal with their insurer over a rebuild somewhere else. Those are good options for people in the circumstances.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Colleagues were suggesting I seek leave to table the Cabinet paper, but it is available on a website, so they can see that for themselves that it does not say that—

Mr SPEAKER: We are not going to do that. Question—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: —but I seek leave to table a letter from the Brooklands Stayers, and it is addressed to the Prime Minister, inviting him and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to come to Brooklands, as they did before.

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

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

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I further seek leave to table the letter of 7 March 2012 to Minister Brownlee from the Parklands action group, setting out the different insurance issues, together with the individual insurance company notices explaining the difficulties that they now face.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Oh, there is objection in that case.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Eh?

Mr SPEAKER: There is objection in that last case.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Reduction—Submission to United Nations

9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Did New Zealand meet the 28 February deadline for its submission to the United Nations on increasing the level of ambition in global greenhouse gas mitigation, as agreed by parties in the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The agreement in Durban was for an invitation for the 195 member countries to submit views on options for increasing ambition globally for reducing emissions, and did not amount to a deadline. I note that only three submissions were received by 28 February. New Zealand will be contributing its views this month, and that will be in good time for the next round of international negotiations, to take place in Bonn in May.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that it was, according to the Minister, an agreement for an invitation but that paragraph 8 said “submit by 28 February”, is he concerned that in ignoring the 28 February request and invitation, this Government conveys the message that New Zealand does not care about the imminence and magnitude of climate change?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite clearly, the fact that only three submissions were received by 28 February from the 195 countries that were represented in Durban hardly suggests that those countries thought it was the rigid deadline in the way in which the member presents it. I can absolutely assure the member that this Government takes those international negotiations very seriously. I have to say that this House should be very proud of the contribution of the Minister responsible for those international negotiations. Tim Groser is playing a very pivotal role and this country is punching well above its weight in ensuring progress is made.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Setting aside what our weight is, has the Cabinet been informed of the recent United Nations Environment Programme report stating that to have a likely chance of staying within the 2 degrees Celsius threshold, global emissions in 2020 will need to be 12 gigatonnes below the projected level of 56?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Certainly, I and my colleague the Minister responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations have received many of those reports. Cabinet is currently giving consideration both to the issues that flow from Bonn as well as to the amendments that will need to be made to the emissions trading scheme. I would also point out that New Zealand is going to comfortably meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations around emissions, and that is something that was not the case prior to our putting the emissions trading scheme in place.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Interpreting the answer to be no, I seek leave to table the United Nations Environment Programme report The Emissions Gap Report 2011.

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

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

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the United Nations Secretary-General has told the Security Council that climate change “not only exacerbates threats to international peace and security; it is a threat to international peace and security” and “Minimalist steps will not do,”; does he agree that bigger reductions by New Zealand than currently announced are essential?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Certainly, we have made a commitment in the negotiations to a target of a reduction of between 10 percent and 20 percent on our 1990 emissions, subject to a number of conditions, on some of which progress was made in the latest negotiations in Durban. What this Government will not do is to make a big, bold promise about emissions reductions, like the previous Government, and let emissions continue to grow up uncontrolled. That does nothing for the credibility of dealing with this very serious issue.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the heightened concern over the mitigation gap, will the Government now accept the Secretary-General’s earlier call for a 30 to 40 percent cut for 2020, in recognition that that is not too big and bold?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have seen no credible plan that would enable New Zealand by 2020 to reduce its emissions to 30 to 40 percent below 1990 levels—and, remember, levels since 1990 grew very substantially in the later years—without completely decimating the New Zealand economy, and the New Zealand Government here is not going to do that.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table the Green Party’s document dated August 2009, Getting There, which conveyed a credible—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This document is already available to all members. We will not waste time doing that.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Recognising the comment by the Alliance of Small Island States, which did manage to get its submission to the United Nations, that “Enhancing mitigation ambition is essential in order to minimize adverse and potentially catastrophic effects for all countries, and is particularly critical to preserving the viability and survival of small island developing states …”, does the Government believe that its current pledge will avert such a catastrophe and ensure their survival?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is a critical issue for those small island States, and New Zealand recognises that, and it was a subject of significant discussion at the Pacific Islands Forum we chaired in Auckland last year. But I remind the member that New Zealand’s portion of greenhouse gas emissions globally is 0.2 percent, and if anybody in this House thinks that New Zealand by itself can solve this problem, they are in my view very misled. What is more, I would say that New Zealand is making more progress than most in changing our emissions profile.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table the submission by the Republic of Nauru on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, pointing out the degree of its concern on this matter.

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

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

Economy—Government Policy

10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her answer to Written Question No 00916 (2012) that “the Government is focused on building a more competitive economy, which will lead to more jobs and higher wages”?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): Yes, I do, actually.

Darien Fenton: Actually! Will the Government’s plans to remove collective bargaining rights help rest home workers on $13.16 an hour get higher wages, or will they instead help international businesses like Macquarie Group, which owns the Oceania Group rest homes, increase their million dollar profit margins?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Our collective bargaining policies are not about removing rights; they are about improving the processes around collective bargaining, reducing the likelihood of protracted disputes, and ensuring that the bargaining process is fair to both parties.

Darien Fenton: How will the Government’s public sector job cuts and wage freezes make New Zealand’s economy more competitive if they result in thousands of lost work hours in the form of proposed widespread public sector industrial action?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The Government is committed to actually building our economy and having an effective and efficient Public Service. It is tough times, but can I say that if that member’s party was in Government, it would be repealing our 90-day trial period provisions, which would put in jeopardy 13,000 jobs; it would be increasing—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for what the Labour Party might do.

Darien Fenton: If her Government is committed to higher wages, why is it refusing to pay an increase to front-line firefighters, who have been in negotiations since August last year, or do front-line workers not feature in her idea of a more competitive economy and higher wages?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The pay for firefighters is not within my responsibility.

Darien Fenton: Does the Government’s focus on building a more competitive economy include shedding front-line workers such as police and nurses, doubling its spending on consultants, and telling public servants to take a bath, pray, or get a pet?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Our priority is to build a stronger economy.

New Zealand Air Force—Launch of NH90 Helicopters

11. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Defence: What updates can he give on new Defence Force capability?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): I am pleased to announce that tomorrow sees the official launch of the NH90 helicopter, which represents a significant upgrade for our military capability. The New Zealand Defence Force will have eight NH90s to replace the Iroquois helicopter fleet. These new NH90 helicopters are the most advanced and capable helicopter that the air force has ever had.

John Hayes: How will the new NH90s improve the capabilities of the New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The NH90s will considerably improve the New Zealand Defence Force’s ability to conduct military, counter-terrorism, disaster relief, search and rescue, and other operations. There will also be better integration with our key defence partners, especially Australia, and they offer a marked improvement in range and endurance over the existing Iroquois helicopters. This milestone illustrates that we are delivering on the plan laid out in the defence white paper. Like other defence forces around the world we are reprioritising our resources to provide up-to-date capability for a 21st century Defence Force. The NH90 is an outstanding example of the modernisation process so far.

Media, Freedom and Independence—Government Broadcasting Policy

12. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Is he confident that current Government broadcasting policy upholds the standards of an independent and free press; if so, why?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting): Of course I have confidence in this Government’s policy, which upholds the standards of an independent and free press as established in the Broadcasting Act 1989, and which provides a robust broadcasting standards and compliance regime.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, it is a primary question and it does have two parts. The second part was not addressed by the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: The member raises a fair point. It is a primary question that was asked, and the Minister answered the first part—that he is confident—but he did not actually say why. [Interruption] Order! I invite the Minister to clarify that part. The party asking the question did not perceive that to be answered, and I must confess I did not either.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Well, Mr Speaker, I will re-give my answer, if you like. Of course I have confidence that this Government’s policy upholds the standards of an independent and free press as established in the Broadcasting Act 1989, which has remained relatively unchanged since then. That provides a robust broadcasting standards and compliance regime. That is why.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just repeating the same answer that you ruled was not satisfactory does not actually answer the second part of the question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I may be wrong here, but I thought the Minister actually added a little bit towards the end of that and argued that because the regime as set out in the Act was, in his view, being complied with and had not been changed, that was why he had confidence in the upholding of the standards. So I believe he did answer that question.

Clare Curran: How was it upholding the standards of a free and independent media for Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to direct its Fair Go journalists not to report stories that criticised their advertisers?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: TVNZ is an entity in its own right, and, as I noted the other day, I am quite comfortable that Fair Go has always given its participants a fair go.

Clare Curran: How is it upholding the standards of a free and independent media for a Minister of the Government, the Prime Minister, to appear on Radio Live during the election period to run his own programme but to pretend it was not political, although taxpayer-funded staff in his office drafted letters to the authorities for Radio Live?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: That is an incredibly long stretch. If that member wants to talk about freedom of press and influence, I suggest she talks to her colleagues who were the architects of the Electoral Finance Act, which—

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that supplementary question asked anything about the Electoral Finance Act. In answering the question, all the Minister said was “That is an incredibly long stretch.” I do not think that represents much of an answer, at all. Before the member gets into attacking the Opposition—and I have no problem with his doing that in this political House—he should at least give a good answer first.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I understand that member raised those issues with the Broadcasting Standards Authority at the select committee last week, and has discussed those issues. The Broadcasting Standards Authority is an independent and separate entity from the Government. This member, this Minister, or this Government does not influence or try to influence decisions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. I note that members on the other side were the architects of an Act that the Press Council itself described as having a “chilling effect” on public debate in New Zealand.

Clare Curran: How was it upholding the standards of a free and independent media for a Minister of the Government, the Prime Minister, to call in the police to hound news agencies over the tea tapes after the Prime Minister’s media stunt went wrong?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I think that member also raised those questions at the select committee, and the Broadcasting Standards Authority, I think, responded to those questions.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a relatively clear one. It is quite possible that the Minister could have answered that he does not have responsibility, but he could at least answer.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member seriously wanted me to require the Minister to answer, I do not think “hounding journalists”, when a matter is just referred to the police, is appropriate language to ensure that the Speaker seeks a comprehensive answer from a Minister. Again, the remedy is in the questioner’s own hands.

Clare Curran: How was it upholding the standards of a free and independent media for the National Business Review, under his Government, to be invaded and threatened by the Serious Fraud Office over South Canterbury Finance, without even a warrant being sought?

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure this Minister has any responsibility for the Serious Fraud Office. I would have to rule that question out of order. This Minister has no responsibility for that, as far as I am aware—I may be wrong there. But the member does have another supplementary question.

Clare Curran: How was it upholding the standards of a free and independent media for the Prime Minister’s electorate chair, Stephen McElrea, to be making funding and operational decisions about television programmes paid for by the taxpayer, after having complained about a programme that he felt did not suit the National Party, in which he is a prominent office holder?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I note that decisions regarding programmes and working groups of New Zealand On Air are made unanimously, so the disgraceful accusations and aspersions that that member puts on individuals of New Zealand On Air reflect on every member of New Zealand On Air, of whom three were appointed by the previous Labour Government.

Bills

Mixed Ownership Model Bill

First Reading

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I move, That the Mixed Ownership Model Bill be now read a first time. I intend that the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the bill, and I intend to move that the committee report to the House by 16 July 2012.

This legislation and debate is about debt. It is not about the Treaty of Waitangi, it is not about foreign ownership, and it is not about other considerations; it is about controlling our nation’s debt. This bill enables the Government to remove four energy companies from the State-owned enterprises legislation and insert them into the Public Finance Act. Let us be clear on this: the new legislation we introduce today guarantees majority Government control of these four energy companies. At least 51 percent remains in the Government’s hand. It fixes into the law of this nation that no person and no entity, including foreign investors, can own more than 10 percent of the voting rights in any one of these companies. These companies will remain New Zealand - controlled companies, contributing to the New Zealand economy, and that is what this legislation is about.

The Mixed Ownership Model Bill is part of this Government’s wider economic programme, which is about controlling debt, increasing savings, and getting our country through the worst financial crisis the world has seen in 100 years. No nation can afford to let its debt get out of control. But many countries are letting their debt get out of control, and in the process very great chunks of their sovereignty are being taken away. These countries are losing control of their destinies. You see it every night on the 6 o’clock news; huge debt is at the core of why Britain, Spain, Italy, and Greece are being forced to impose austerity measures, and why the United States is locked in a debate about how to cut its enormous debt.

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sit about 9 feet to the right of the Minister. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Members will be seated. Can I just remind members that when there is a point of order on the floor, there is absolute silence.

Hon John Banks: I have sat here at question time day after day, and all I hear is barracking and barking from all sides of the House. I am one member of Parliament who is very interested in hearing what is being said and transacted across the House. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings have plenty to say about rare and reasonable interjections. The barking and the barracking across this Parliament, from side to side and corner to corner, does this House no good. People sitting at home watching on television and witnessing it in the galleries think it is a disgrace. I put it to you, Mr Assistant Speaker: why do we not give the Minister an opportunity to say what he has to say, and then I will listen very intently to what the members of the Opposition have got to say. We might learn something. How about that for a proposition?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. The member has made his point. Interjections are to be rare and reasonable, and I would refer members to Speaker’s ruling 62/4.

Hon TONY RYALL: Huge debt is at the core of so many of the problems of countries in Europe and around the rest of the world. Most of these countries have absolutely no choice—no choice whatsoever—but to put in place policies that reduce debt and that will greatly reduce important front-line services while tens of thousands of people are protesting in the streets due to these measures. Britain is looking to reduce its Public Service by over 700,000 people in the next few years. Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain are cutting their public health spending. Public servants from throughout Europe and other parts of the world are having their wages and salaries cut. Other countries are being forced by their foreign bankers to sell their public assets in order to get their debt under control. We do not want that for New Zealand. That party opposite might want to put this country on a road to Athens, but this party in Government does not.

New Zealand is different and we are fortunate. Thanks to 3 strong years of leadership under this Government and our financial management, New Zealand is not in that position. However, we have a duty to future generations to control our debt. Our debt is projected to increase to almost 30 percent of GDP, or $72 billion, in the next few years, but we have planned and prepared for that. In a few more years we will continue to borrow as we get our deficit under control as we protect and grow our public services. But this Government has confidence that our policies will carry us through and out of the recession as we get our books back into surplus, and that includes controlling our debt. That is what this bill is part of.

The partial public share offers we are providing for in this legislation, together with the sell-down of parts of Air New Zealand, are expected to raise between $5 billion and $7 billion. We fully expect that 85 to 90 percent of those companies will be New Zealand - owned when they float. We can do that because the Government controls the allocation policy for each of these share offerings. We will decide what categories of shareholders get what, and we will have New Zealanders at the front of the queue. Everyday people will get the opportunity to have a direct stake in these companies. Everyday people will have an opportunity to have a direct stake in these companies, and that is the heart of the Opposition’s attack. It does not believe that everyday New Zealanders can be trusted to own shares.

Under this Government the $5 million to $7 million worth of proceeds are going to be put in the Future Investment Fund, which is going to be available for important public infrastructure like schools and hospitals, instead of borrowing that money from overseas banks—the same banks that are putting the pressure on countries like Ireland, Italy, and Portugal to pay back their loans and cut their services. As the Minister of Finance has said, New Zealanders would rather pay dividends to New Zealanders than interest to overseas lenders.

The four energy companies will continue to be New Zealand - controlled and New Zealand - run, just like Air New Zealand. We will offer those shares predominantly to New Zealanders as an opportunity to buy into these companies in order to raise funds to pay for much-needed assets such as schools and hospitals.

The Government has made it clear we are not walking away from our Treaty obligations. We held 10 consultation hui throughout the country, and we listened with an open mind. As a result of the consultation, section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act has now been transmitted into the legislation with the clarification that private shareholders are not affected. Māori and all other New Zealanders will have their interest protected through the Resource Management Act, which these companies must comply with. They are still there.

There are some who argue that the Government is better off retaining full ownership, because it gets more revenue from continuing to own these State-owned enterprises outright than the benefits of the partial sale. That is not right. The four energy State-owned enterprises’ dividends have averaged about 4.1 percent over the last 5 years, compared with the cost of new debt, for the same period, of around 5.2 percent. There are lots of other figures being thrown around. Let us be clear: the facts are that in general terms it is pretty evenly balanced, but what they do not take into account is the huge social benefit of the schools and the hospitals that the proceeds will be invested in. The future profitability of these companies, which private shareholders may get through their dividends, is captured in the sales price. So we get the cash upfront, without risk, and that makes a lot of sense in these difficult times.

There are other important benefits flowing from this legislation. We have the opportunity for New Zealanders to invest in and grow their own economy. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund is investing in energy companies throughout Australia, but it is not allowed to invest in our own country. It is not allowed to invest in our own country.

The Government thought long and hard before committing to this policy, because we know that New Zealanders are not enthusiastic about partial asset sales. They remember what happened in the late 1980s under the Labour Government, and that is why we have this new approach. But I say to New Zealanders that looking at those polls, I bet that if we asked New Zealanders whether they want to prevent future generations from being saddled with debt, they would say yes. That is what this Government is determined to do. We must control the debt, and this mixed-ownership model is about providing overwhelming New Zealand control and freeing up 3 percent of the Government’s assets, which can go into a Future Investment Fund to be invested in important schools and hospitals.

This is important legislation. Our country must control its debt. This is part of a well-thought-through plan that will deliver benefits to New Zealanders for years to come. It will improve the investment opportunities for New Zealanders, it will help these companies improve, and, most important, it will provide a very clear message to future generations that this was a Parliament that recognised, at a time when the rest of the world was losing control of its destiny, that this country took it back.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): This bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, is a desperate, flailing attempt by a Government bereft of ideas on how to grow the economy. The only idea it has is to sell off New Zealanders’ future, sell off the assets built up by past generations for future generations, sell off our key infrastructure, and sell off what New Zealanders already own. That is it from this Government: sell, cut, and hope. That is the extent of the economic strategy. But we can add one more word to that now: sell, cut, hope, and guess—guess—because the best the Minister of Finance can do is guess at the benefit to New Zealanders. Well, the problem is that New Zealanders do not buy it. New Zealanders already own these assets. The everyday New Zealanders whom Mr Ryall speaks of, those everyday New Zealanders are worried about paying their power bills, not about buying the power company. The kind of everyday New Zealanders Mr Ryall is talking about might be the people he meets in the Northern Club; they are not the people in the “cossie club”, they are not the ordinary New Zealanders struggling to make ends meet and being told to buy back what they already own.

This is short-sighted. It is a sugar-hit economic policy. It is all very well for Mr Key to get unconditional love from Moonbeam, but he should not be taking economic advice from her as well. This is without doubt the most short-sighted piece of economic policy we have seen in this House for a long, long time. “Mum and dad investors” is a piece of double-speak. There is no doubt in my mind that that phrase has been invented by this Government to try to sell a policy to New Zealanders that New Zealanders know is the wrong thing to do for their future. There is no way this Government can guarantee shares will stay in New Zealand control. We know from the experience of Contact Energy that the number of shareholders, within 6 months of Contact Energy being privatised, fell by 35,000. There is no way this Government can guarantee that New Zealanders will retain control of these assets. These shares will go overseas. New Zealanders will lose control of these assets. New Zealanders know that foreign control of their assets is the wrong thing to do. They have had the experience. The 1990s did teach them that, I say to Mr Ryall, and they know that foreign control of our assets—foreign control of our core infrastructure—is bad for our economy, and it is bad for everybody.

But what about this as the time to sell these assets? Could there be a worse time to sell these assets? No wonder Bill English has to guess how much New Zealand might benefit from this, because he is selling these assets into a world economy where he will get the worst possible price. It makes no economic sense. What we do not know yet is the cost of selling these assets. Who is benefiting from these sales? The lawyers, the finance companies—who is benefiting? They are the people who are benefiting from these sales—

Hon Parekura Horomia: Their mates.

GRANT ROBERTSON: The mates of the National Party, not the everyday New Zealanders Mr Ryall claims to be representing.

Hon David Parker: The 1 percent.

GRANT ROBERTSON: As Mr Parker says, the 1 percent are the people who will benefit from this. They are the New Zealanders who will benefit from having these assets in their hands. Why not have a Government with a vision to actually use these assets to benefit New Zealanders, to develop these assets, and to make sure that they actually work on our behalf, instead of giving up and selling them off because that is the one idea it has got? And New Zealanders understand this: you do not sell the house to pay the mortgage, or you do not sell half the house to pay the mortgage, because what happens the next time there is a debt problem? What else do we sell? Do we sell the other half?

This is no way to manage an economy, it is no way to develop infrastructure, and it is an insult to the intelligence of New Zealanders for Mr Ryall to stand up and say “This is how we fund schools and hospitals.” Going right back into the last century and beyond, Governments have taken seriously their responsibility to provide schools and hospitals. They are a core part of a Government’s business. It is an insult to this House and to New Zealanders to try to say to them “The only way you’ll get those schools and hospitals is if we hock off the assets.” That is an insult. This Government must have more imagination and ability, and actually know that New Zealanders can keep these assets—they can keep these assets—and have the quality schools and hospitals that they deserve.

The Prime Minister told us there would be an elegant solution around the section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act debate. Well, the elegant solution looks a little bit as elegant as Tony Ryall’s shirt and tie combination today. It is a bit of a clash, because what has happened is that we have got the old section 9—in this bill, section 45Q inserted by clause 16—and added on to the end is “but no one who is a private company will be responsible for that.” That means that Treaty principles apply to 51 percent, but not the other half—half of the dam, but not the other half of the dam. How does that work? That is far from an elegant solution. I call on the Māori Party in this House today to treat this issue as what it is: an issue of confidence. This is an issue of confidence. This is the major economic matter that it has to decide on in this term, and I challenge the Māori Party. Its members know that this is wrong. They want to vote against it, but they want to stay inside the coalition. My challenge to them today is to have the courage of their principles and convictions, and walk away—walk away today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must not challenge the courage.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I also challenge Peter Dunne, because that is the vote. It is 61 to 60; Peter Dunne’s vote is the one that will carry this. The people of Ōhariu will tell this Minister and this member time and time again over the next months that they do not want these assets sold. Mr Dunne is the man who can stop this. He can make this the exclamation mark at the end of his political career, make it worth something, and say no to the sale of these assets. It is one vote, and if that side of the House is claiming a mandate, every single survey around asset sales says New Zealanders do not want them. Seventy-five percent of people surveyed in the New Zealand Values Survey said they do not want assets sold. There is no mandate. Every member on that side of the House went to election meetings, and they know what New Zealanders think. They know New Zealanders do not want these assets sold. What they want is a Government that has actually got some vision to grow the economy, instead of thinking that it is sell, cut, hope, and guess, because that is the best that it can do.

The other thing we need to make sure we are very clear on here is what else is lost in this bill. The social responsibility clauses that have guided State-owned enterprises are out the door. There will be no sense of that, and if New Zealanders know one thing, they know this: the one sure outcome of selling these assets will be that power prices will rise. That is the one sure outcome: that power prices will rise. Mr Coleman is questioning that. Power prices will rise. That is the outcome of this. I do not care about whatever past record Mr Coleman wants to talk about. Will power prices rise? If he can guarantee they will not, he will satisfy New Zealanders, but they know they will. They know that this will affect them in their hip pocket. It will affect future generations.

This is actually an issue of sovereignty, as Mr Ryall said, but he got it completely round the wrong way. The issue of sovereignty here is one about New Zealanders controlling our future, and New Zealanders having an ability to control their own lives, not to see those core assets sold off overseas. There will be a petition for a citizens initiated referendum on this matter. It will go around the country, and I can guarantee that every single member on the other side of the House will see people gathering these signatures. That referendum will occur, and it will tell the National Party that New Zealanders do not support the sale of these assets. There is a core message in this today, and that is that New Zealanders are proud of what has been built up in the past. They want to retain ownership of their own future. They know that this is a sugar hit, a one-off hit, for the economy that cannot be repeated, and that if we try to buy those assets back it will cost us time and time again. The message from this side of the House is that New Zealanders already own these assets, Mr Ryall; they are not yours to sell.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of State Services): That speech from Grant Robertson really was an audition for the Labour leadership, quite honestly, and I can see by the smiles on the faces over there that Labour members actually think that was not bad fare compared with what they have seen from their leader over the past few weeks.

It is a pleasure to be here today and to be speaking in this debate on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. As the Hon Tony Ryall said, this is a debate about debt. Grant Robertson wants to send New Zealand on the road to Athens, down the road to southern Europe, to more debt and a failing economy. We know what these people in Labour are about: they are about nothing at all. All we hear from them is what they are against. Quite frankly, they have no credible economic plan to get New Zealand out of debt. Tony Ryall is right: this is about debt.

There are two stark options here. The very, very stark option is borrowing more, and that is what the Labour Party would have this country doing. It has no plan to balance the books. We have said we will keep debt below 30 percent. We are doing that, but at the same time that presents a challenge: how are we going to afford the vital infrastructure that this country needs? How are we going to afford the hospitals, the broadband, and the schools? Well, this is how we are going to do it: this partial float of these four energy companies is going to free up $5 billion to $7 billion, which is going to go back into purchasing crucial infrastructure in order to build New Zealand and make it the great nation that it is and will continue to be.

So I ask you, what is the plan from that side of the House? Grant Robertson said something about getting a petition together and that this is a confidence issue. It is a confidence issue, and we won that confidence issue at the election. John Key and the National Party campaigned very, very clearly about what we were going to do with regard to the mixed-ownership model. We explained it very clearly to the New Zealand public, and the New Zealand public actually said “You know, when you put the whole package together with this Government’s priorities to build the economy, to rebuild Christchurch, and to pay down debt, it makes sense.”

I can tell you another thing: for Grant Robertson to get up here and say that power prices are going to go up, that blatantly ignores the fact—

Hon Nathan Guy: Wasn’t that what happened under Labour?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Under Labour, over 9 years, power prices went up 72 percent—

Paul Goldsmith: How much?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —and you have not heard them saying anything about that. Seventy-two percent over 9 years. It was a completely disgusting embarrassment, and Labour did nothing about that. What this bill is going to do is enable New Zealanders to invest their money in something that is going to produce them a good return.

What was Labour offering? Finance companies.

Hon Nathan Guy: CGT.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That was Labour’s answer: finance companies. Oh yeah, and of course the future plan for Labour was also the capital gains tax.

When it comes down to it, it is a matter of this country facing a serious problem with debt, and I can tell you, we are going to be back in surplus by 2014-15. It will be us, the Koreans, and the Australians. If these guys in Labour were in charge, debt would be going up, up, up. If there is one thing that New Zealanders hate, it is debt.

All I have heard from David Shearer over the time he has been here is some vague, mumbling plan about a series of speeches he is going to give. There is no plan from Labour about getting debt under control, and no plan for how we are going to actually purchase the infrastructure we need. Well, this bill is a very concrete plan. I ask you, if this is such a bad idea, why did Labour not take the opportunity when it was in power to buy back the bit of Air New Zealand that the Government did not own? Why did Labour not do that? Because, quite frankly, it had no plan about this.

In fact, there was quite an interesting conversation between Larry Williams and David Shearer on Newstalk ZB on 24 February. Larry Williams said to Mr Shearer: “Do you think it would be a good idea to buy the remaining 25 percent of Air New Zealand that the Crown don’t own?”, and David Shearer mumbled and said: “That’s not a bad suggestion, but I don’t know if—”, and Larry Williams said: “No, it is a nutty suggestion. Thanks, Mr Shearer. Good afternoon.” Frankly, that is where the commentariat are at on this.

You know, Labour has been very, very inconsistent on this over a long period of time, but what we are going to do is keep New Zealand’s debt down. That is the key message. On top of that, we are going to free up that $5 billion to $7 billion to build the infrastructure that we need. If we do not get that money, how are we going to build the schools and how are we going to build the roads?

We are not going to be decreasing New Zealand’s overall asset base. The country owns $245 billion of assets, and over the next 4 years that is going to increase to $267 billion. So, in actual fact, the total public ownership of assets is increasing, but we have to use our balance sheet in a sensible way. There is a sensible, very strategic plan there, which we have taken to the public. We have the mandate, and when the public actually look at the choices, they can see that when we are faced with a very difficult financial situation, this makes sense.

Tony Ryall made a very good point. He is saying that in the UK they are going to be laying off 700,000 public servants. We do not want to get to that position, and that is why we actually have to take some choices that make sense.

We have made five major guarantees around this. We have said that the Government will be the major shareholder. You know that. These people know that. The priority will be for New Zealand’s shareholders. So we know that New Zealanders—ordinary New Zealanders—will be first in the queue to own these shares. We know that it provides new investment opportunities for New Zealanders, and it is going to provide new public assets. The Prime Minister has said that. He has made very clear commitments, and we are honouring those commitments.

When it comes down to it, there is a pretty clear case for the public having the opportunity to buy a stake in these four energy companies. When you look at the cost of the debt that we would be incurring if we did not do that, that is going to exceed the price of the dividend payment. If you look at it historically, State-owned enterprise dividends averaged 4.1 percent over the past 5 years, compared with a cost of debt of 5.2 percent. So when you look at it, it does not make sense to accrue more debt. Not the least of the reasons for that, if you look at Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain—

Andrew Little: We’re not in Portugal!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We are not in Portugal—exactly. And we are not going to be there, because we are taking a sensible attitude to balance sheet management. The burnt-out old unionist hack over there is trying to preach 1970s union economic policy—“Greek-onomics”—in a modern world where we are facing very serious challenges. I can tell you that if Andrew Little ever became Prime Minister, there would be strikes, which he would be supporting, there would be debt, which he would be supporting, and we would be becoming like Ireland, Greece, and Spain, which presumably he would be very happy with, as well.

But, you know, when you come back to what Labour is saying—trying to convince people that power prices are going to go up—we know that that is not going to happen, because we have got professional management in there. We know that compared with what happened when Labour was in power, there is no chance of a 72 percent price rise over 9 years. I think it is a disgrace that the party that claims to be for the average mum and dad, the ordinary working New Zealander, allowed that catastrophic turn of events with regards to power prices to happen over such a long period.

Do you know what the real issue is? I do not think those people over there understand basic economics. I do not think they understand how this bill is going to work, and they certainly do not understand the importance of paying down debt. That is the mantra across every modern economy: get down debt. If you are going to buy new stuff, you have to fund it off your balance sheet. This is what we are doing. We are freeing up that $5 to $7 billion of cash that will buy crucial new infrastructure.

There are some senior Labour MPs over there. I challenge David Cunliffe, when he speaks, to get up and tell the New Zealand public how they are going to afford the infrastructure that New Zealand needs over the next decade. Because David Shearer sure will not tell us. I am sure that New Zealand First members are going to have a lot to say about this, as well. Of course, I do not know what they will be saying, but obviously with their leader having signed off the prospectus for the Auckland International Airport float in 1998, and supporting, of course, what happened with selling Kiwibank, we will expect some sort of turn-round in the position they have been articulating in question time so far on this matter.

So when you come down to it, this is a debate about debt, about sensible management of the economy, and about how we are going to actually afford the infrastructure that New Zealand needs over the next decade. These people on the Labour benches have some real explaining to do. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): This debate should be about the economy. New Zealanders are opposed to asset sales because they know that changing who owns what already exists does nothing to change the output of the New Zealand economy. These assets already exist. They are not going to be more productive than they are now. The only way they will be more profitable than they are now is if electricity prices increase. One of the prior speakers—I think it was Tony Ryall—tried to tell us that New Zealanders will be better off as a consequence of the sale of these assets. The truth is that only around 1 percent of New Zealanders will end up owning these shares. The vast majority of the shares in these companies, once sold, will be owned by the 1 percent, not the 99 percent. Maybe it will be 2 percent, but the vast majority of these shares will be owned by the 1 percent, not the 99 percent. Is it necessary?

We had a lecture from the National Party on debt. During the term of the last Labour Government, the Labour Government ran Budget surpluses that National opposed. It was difficult to do, because National and others were saying: “Don’t run surpluses. Please give us tax cuts.” Instead, Labour, with the support of New Zealand First and the Greens, ran surpluses. We reduced Government debt from 40 percent gross to 17 percent. Net debt went down to zero. As a consequence, the incoming National Government inherited amongst the lowest Government debt in the world—amongst the lowest Government debt in the world. Even after the Budget deficits that the current Government is running—this year it will be around $12 billion; last year it was $18 billion—and even after the Government gets back into surplus, which will be around 2014-15, and would have been under Labour too, New Zealand has amongst the lowest Government debt in the developed world. Government debt is not New Zealand’s biggest problem; the growth in our economy is, and this bill does nothing to improve New Zealand’s growth. New Zealanders know that. That is why they are opposed to asset sales.

The Budget Policy Statement came out a couple of weeks ago. The Opposition parties have been very critical of both the Government and Treasury, which on this issue was the lapdog of the Government, for booking the proceeds of the sale of State-owned enterprises in the prior Budget and in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, but not showing what happened as a consequence of loss of the ownership of half of those companies. The Budget Policy Statement does it, for the first time. What does it say? This is a quote from page 7: “the forecast finance cost savings”—from the sale—“are less than the forecast forgone profits.” The Government deficit goes backwards as a consequence of selling these assets. How much? Well, according to page 6 of the Budget Policy Statement, the loss, which includes the forgone dividends and the forgone share of retained earnings—those are the two components—is more than the interest saved. How much do they go backwards? Well, in 2014, the estimated going backwards is $87 million; in 2015, $98 million. We are around $100 million per annum worse off. It is another example of why this Mixed Ownership Model Bill should be called the 1 percent bill, because not only does the majority of these shares end up owned by about 1 percent of New Zealanders, but that increase in the Government deficit—that is, the operating balance before gains and losses—of $100 million a year is roughly 1 percent of this year’s deficit. It is a large amount of money. We are $100 million a year worse off as a consequence of the sale of these assets. The Government would be better to borrow that money for the capital expenditure and keep these assets, and, even in the short term, New Zealanders would be better off by $100 million per annum.

We had the Prime Minister say that none of these shares, or very few of these shares, would end up in overseas ownership. That was not the experience with Contact Energy, not even in respect of the privately owned, smaller-investor portion of the Contact Energy sale. A lot of those ended up in overseas ownership. And now, in the Budget Policy Statement, for the first time we have the acknowledgment: “the Government”—this is on Treasury advice—“expects New Zealand ownership of the companies will be around 85 to 90 per cent.” following the sell-down. In other words, up to 30 percent of the shares—because the Government is selling only half—that are going to be sold are going to end up in overseas ownership.

It is already clear that the Government is trying to convince New Zealanders that if the Government deficit comes down, it has succeeded in managing the economy. The deficit will halve in the next year just because of the consequences of the Canterbury earthquake flowing through. That is no success of economic policy. The rest of the Government deficit will go away, through a bit of austerity and a little bit of growth. But the underlying structural problems in the New Zealand economy remain, and this bill does absolutely nothing to address them. The underlying structural problems in the New Zealand economy are that for decades we have exported less than the cost of our imports and our interest bill. Every year that happens you have a current account deficit, and in the projections from both Treasury and the Reserve Bank, every year from here to the end of the projection period New Zealand’s current account deficit gets worse. It gets worse.

In other words, despite the rhetoric of Mr English saying that the Government is rebalancing the economy, it is not. Every year New Zealand has a current account deficit. According to Treasury, by 2016 it will be 6.9 percent of GDP. Every year you have a current account deficit, there are only two ways to bridge that gap between the cost of your imports and your interest bill, and your exports. There are only two ways that it can be funded. One is by borrowing more money from overseas, and the other is by selling your assets to overseas people. What was previously New Zealand - owned becomes overseas-owned. That is how you fund a current account deficit, and that is what this Government has got as its plan for New Zealand, because under current settings that is what happens, every year, to the end of the projection period—2016. If New Zealand is unlucky enough to still have a National Government then, it would have been in power for 8 years and every year New Zealand would have been getting poorer. So in 2014 New Zealand gets poorer, in 2015 New Zealand gets poorer, and in 2016 New Zealand gets poorer. How does that show up? It shows up in increased overseas debt. It shows up in an increased proportion of our assets—our land assets, our power companies—being in overseas ownership.

This plan, if you can call it that, is the central plan of the Government’s economic strategy for these 3 years. It came about because the Government was being criticised for having no plan. That is what happened. This was an ideological burp from the Government during its last term of Government, following the criticism, which was hurting it, that it had no plan for the economy. So this was its plan. This was its plan—to change who owns what already exists.

We hear the suggestion that this is necessary so that people have got things to invest in. Investors, if they want infrastructure investments of this kind, can already invest in Contact Energy, or TrustPower, or Vector, or Telecom if they want that sort of infrastructure, or the Port of Tauranga. They have got plenty of alternatives. They do not need these.

The idea that New Zealand capital markets will prosper only if we let them trade what the Government creates is such a negative view of New Zealand’s capability or the capability of New Zealand’s private enterprise. If the only way that private enterprise and capital markets in New Zealand can succeed is by selling what the Government has created, what does that say about private enterprise? Well, in the Labour Party we have a much more aspirational view of private enterprise. We think that private enterprise will succeed, and grow the exports, and grow the jobs that New Zealand needs to grow the incomes that we all need to start going forward as a nation, if the Government pulls the levers that only a Government can pull, but this Government refuses to.

The briefing from Treasury to the incoming Minister said the Government had to address some of the imbalances in the economy that lead to our current account deficit, lead to our rising international liabilities, our overseas debt, and our overseas ownership of New Zealand assets. Treasury said that one of the really important things was to address the proper investment signal in the economy, so that people invest on the basis of the profitability of their investment rather than the tax-effectiveness of their investment. Part of the reason too much investment in New Zealand goes into the speculative land sector, and not enough into companies that grow for people to invest in, for companies to manufacture goods, for the jobs and incomes that flow from that—a major part of the reason for that—is there is a tax break for the alternative. So Treasury’s advice was to tax capital income equally à la the sort of policy that Labour and the Greens as well have been advocating in terms of a capital gains tax. Pulling levers like proper tax signals, proper investment policy, proper savings policy, and decent monetary policy is what we need. We can never sell our way to a brighter future.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise to speak on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, the bill to steal the assets of most New Zealanders—the assets that currently belong to 100 percent of New Zealanders—and to hand them over to a small minority of New Zealanders. These assets are currently owned by everybody. Everybody owns these energy companies. They belong to all New Zealanders. What this Government is proposing to do is to take those assets from 100 percent of New Zealanders and give them over to maybe 1 or 2 percent of New Zealanders, against their wishes.

When we poll people and when independent polling is done, time and time again New Zealanders say that they do not want their property taken from them. Time and again a large majority of New Zealanders are opposed to the privatisation schemes of this Government, embedded in this bill. The reason they are opposed to privatisation is that they have seen it before and it was a disaster. If it is repeated it will be a disaster again. So that is why the majority of New Zealanders do not support privatisation—they have seen it before and it was a failure.

This Government proposes to take the property of all New Zealanders and give it to the 1 percent, and when you take people’s property against their consent, that is called theft. This Government is proposing to steal the assets from 100 percent of New Zealanders and give them to the 1 percent. You might say: “Well, you know, what choice has the Government got? It has got all this debt. It has got a deficit problem.”, and this is now the Government’s latest argument. The Government has used all sorts of arguments, and I want to address a few of them if I get time.

The latest argument is the one around debt. The Government has decided that this is the strongest argument, that it is going to rely on debt. The Government’s deficit is self-induced; let us be absolutely clear about this. The Government gave away tax cuts to upper-income earners that cost $2 billion per year for the top 10 percent. So we are losing, because of the decision of the Government, $2 billion a year in forgone taxes on the top 10 percent. So every year we are $2 billion further in deficit than we would otherwise have been, because of the policies of the current Government.

If the Government says it is going to raise $5 billion to $7 billion, that is only 3 years of this lost tax revenue. If the Government had decided not to give away these very large tax cuts to the top 10 percent of income earners, then over 3 years it would have raised the same amount as it is going to raise from this privatisation. So the Government introduces a policy that throws the Government books into deficit, heavy deficit, and then says: “Oh, the Government books are in deficit. We’re going to have to sell the assets. Oh, we didn’t think of that when we introduced the old tax switcheroo.” Remember, the tax switcheroo was supposed to be fiscally neutral, but of course it was not, as we said it would not be, and it has turned out to be even worse than anyone predicted. So the Government introduces its old tax switcheroo, which gives $2 billion a year to the top 10 percent of income earners, and then it says: “Oh goodness, we’ve got a deficit. We’re going to have to sell the assets to cover the deficit.” Who was going to be able to afford to buy these assets that it is having to sell? Oh, I know—the top 10 percent whom it has just given $2 billion a year to in very large tax cuts. So it says: “Oh, there is a terrible deficit that we”—the Government—“created, and who’s going to be able to afford to buy these assets? Oh, the very people we just gave a big tax cut to.” The Government just gave a big tax cut to the very people it is going to sell these assets to.

So that is how the Government has manufactured the deficit crisis, which it is using to sell these assets that belong to all New Zealanders and have been built up over generations. This is not just something about which any old Government of the day can say: “Oh well, whatever. We’ll just flick it on.” This was built up by generations of New Zealanders. It is no coincidence that Grey Power is absolutely opposed to this sale, because Grey Power understands that it was its members who worked over generations to build up these assets that this wretched Government is proposing to sell off, because it manufactured a Budget deficit in order to justify the privatisation of assets to its friends and mates. This is, I think, a tragedy.

One of the things that I think needs to be brought out very clearly about this is that the Government, for political reasons, is saying it is going to sell only 49 percent, so the assets will still stay in New Zealand ownership. What the Government is not telling people is that individual assets owned by these power companies can be sold off. The Manapōuri power station, for example, is owned by Meridian Energy, and once Meridian Energy is partially privatised it can be sold by that partially privatised company, and we will no longer own the Manapōuri power station—not even 51 percent—because 100 percent of it can fall into foreign ownership.

When I questioned the Minister about this in the House the other day he referred to the major transactions part of the Companies Act. What he failed to mention—and he said that if major transactions happen, then you have to get approval from 75 percent of shareholders, as it is in the Companies Act—is that the major transactions part applies if you are proposing to sell 50 percent or more of the assets in one of these companies.

If the partially privatised Meridian were to sell off the Manapōuri power station or other kinds of assets that it owns, it will not meet that test. It will be less than 50 percent of the assets. The Government, as the 51 percent shareholder, will not have a veto on the sale of individual power stations. So we will see the individual assets of these partially privatised companies vulnerable to being sold off into full—100 percent—foreign ownership if it makes commercial sense for the companies to do so. The Government has created this debt problem. It has created a situation where once this partial privatisation goes ahead, individual assets can be sold off into foreign ownership and 100 percent private ownership.

It is also worth making the point about debt and the ability to service debt. Mr Parker has made some of these points, quite rightly, but it is worth making a few of the others. Treasury runs this thing called the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit, and it estimates the return the Government is getting from these companies—the total shareholder return—at 18 percent. A total shareholder return is the return that Treasury uses as if it was an investor. It looks at the profits and the dividends—both retained profits and the profits given out as dividends—and it also looks at the growth of the value of the capital, which is, of course, the point of view that investors take when they look at an investment. They ask: “Well, what are my shares worth now? What will my shares be worth in a year? What will they be worth down the track?”.

So Treasury takes a total shareholder return perspective in analysing the value of the companies. Treasury said the total shareholder return is 18 percent—18 percent. The Government is currently borrowing at 4 percent, so the Government is proposing to sell assets with a total shareholder return of 18 percent in order to avoid taking on debt that will cost it 4 percent. You do not have to be very bright—you only have to be brighter than the Government—to figure out that this bill does not make any sense, that this bill is not fiscally sensible. This bill is not economically rational. This bill does not make any sense.

If your concern is maximising or supporting the fiscal position of the Government you would retain the assets in order to service the debt, because that makes a lot more fiscal sense, and anyone who looks at the numbers knows that. That is exactly why there will be a lot of people who borrow money to buy these companies—institutional investors. They know that even though they pay a higher interest rate than the Government, much more than 4 percent, they will invest in these companies because they know that these companies will make a very high rate of return, as they have in the past.

Finally, I would just like to lament what will happen if this goes ahead—if the referendum does not stop it; if the campaign does not stop it—and that is about the missed opportunities for our country. Mighty River Power, just to take one example, is one of the top geothermal energy companies in the world. It is part of the global future for renewable energy. If this Government sells off this company, then New Zealand will miss the opportunity to own the Fonterra of renewable energy, because that is what our renewable energy companies are.

The renewable energy sector is growing rapidly internationally. We have a set of companies that have the critical mass, the expertise, and the capital to take advantage of that, and right at the moment when that could happen, the Government goes ahead and starts to privatise them. Once you privatise and the headquarters goes somewhere else, the research and development goes somewhere else and New Zealand misses this fantastic opportunity that we have in the renewable energy sector. I hope the referendum goes ahead, because we need to stop the theft that the Government is proposing in this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There is to be no indication of applause from the gallery.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I say at the outset the Māori Party will oppose this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. We have said that at the beginning and we say it today. We repeat it today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You sure now?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: In triplicate, yeah. Nō reira, hoki atu māua ki te wā au e tamariki ana. I whānau au i Takapau tāku piringa ki Ngāti Kahungunu. I a au e tamariki ana e kaha ana ngā mātau ki te kōrero e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. kei roto i ngā waiata, i ngā kōrero i runga marae ka puta mai te kaupapa o te Tiriti me te tino kaupapa o taua kawenata. Kī mai taku iwi ki ahau nā te mea nā Te Hāpuku i haina te Tiriti, i roto i ngā whakapapa nāku i haina, nāku Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nā reira, kua tae nei ki tēnei wā ka kite au i ngā iwi Māori me ngā kiri mā, kai te noho tonu i roto i ēnā whakaaro, he taonga te Tiriti o Waitangi. He kaupapa nui rawa atu mō tātau nā te mea, kua hainatia te Tiriti, ka āhei ngā tauiwi ki te hara mai ki Aotearoa noho ai, kia nohotahi ai tātau i tēnei whenua. Nā reira ngā Kāwanatanga whai atu i tērā, Kāwanatanga Reipa, Kāwanatanga Nāhinara, nā rātau i tīni, ko te Tiriti o Waitangi tō tātou kawenata whakakotahi ai tātau i roto i a Aotearoa nei, a, ki roto i te reo Pākehā, our founding document.

[So we would go back to the time when I was a child. I was born at Takapau, which is my connection to Ngāti Kahungunu. While I was young, parents talked hard out on the Treaty of Waitangi. The principles of the Treaty and its real purpose emerged in songs and stories on marae. My people told me that because Te Hāpuku signed the Treaty, I signed it too, because of my genealogical links, so the Treaty of Waitangi is mine as well. So we have reached this point in time where I see Māori and fair-skinned people still living in that mindset that the Treaty of Waitangi is a treasure. It is a really great philosophy for us because the Treaty has been signed and foreigners are able to come to New Zealand and live as one in this land. Successive Labour and National Governments after that changed it by saying that the Treaty of Waitangi is our founding covenant that makes us one here throughout New Zealand, and, in the English language, our founding document.]

I have spoken initially about the Treaty of Waitangi because, over and over again, Māori are always having to litigate the case of the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi to us as a nation. As I have said, it is a founding document of this country, of our nationhood, but it also is the means by which tangata Tiriti and tangata whenua can noho tahi—can live together—and grow our nation, inviting other people from other countries to come and live with us but under our umbrella, if you like, as a people of New Zealand.

So when this bill came up and we saw that the first draft we saw from Treasury had no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi, our opposition was in two areas. In the first place, to sell Papatūānuku—the land—would, to us, be wrong. It would be wrong to sell our land to overseas people. If they want to come and live here and be New Zealanders and buy land, that is different, but the possibility of selling it to overseas people and we are the tenants in those lands is foreign to tikanga Māori. So we value very much that we do not sell our land over there and our taonga that we have. That is at the base of it.

But, secondly, we noticed in that initial document that the reference to the principles of the Treaty that is present in the State-Owned Enterprises Act, under section 9, was absent. So we immediately made a challenge to the National Government, which we are in coalition with, to reinstate section 9 from the State-Owned Enterprises Act into this new amendment to the Public Finance Act, so that if this is passed, then the Crown will still be bound by the principles of the Treaty.

You know, it is just time and time again for all Māori who are in the front line for different activities. We see our people relitigating, relitigating the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi to our country and what it will do for us in the future.

So that is why—the two reasons—we have fought so much about section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act, because, as everyone knows, we said we were considering whether we should stay with our Government, which is supporting us in other areas, or whether we should perhaps leave. On no other issue have we ever said that. But because it is the Treaty and we feel that we have made our point, along with iwi leaders at the consultations, section 9 basically word for word is now inside the new bill.

However, we will not be supporting the bill, because of our belief that our land should stay with us in Aotearoa. The land is the mother, and the sky is the father and the elements, and they nourish each other. That is the real reason why we oppose the bill. However, it is not over. If it passes, then in there is the opportunity for the sales to take place and one still has to look at who appoints the directors, how they are appointed, their responsibilities under the Treaty, and so on. So even though the Crown is 51 percent shareholder, how will it act out in terms of the responsibilities to the principles of the Treaty? How will it affect the water—and iwi are down a long road already with Government, talking about the rights and interests in water of all New Zealanders including Māori tribal people on the riverbanks of those rivers.

So it has been good that we have been able to get this far in those kinds of discussions about our natural resources, and I am pleased that an assurance has been given to Sir Tumu te Heuheu and the Māori water group of iwi leaders that discussions will continue in the same vein that they have before, and that clearly there could be co-management of our waterways and our fresh water in the future, as was being planned.

Just to summarise my view and our party’s view, we are sad that our land and our assets are going to be sold. We are glad that the Treaty section, section 9, is in there and we will be looking with interest to see how the Crown is actually bound, and how it intends, as 51 percent shareholder, to observe those principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I am happy to be leading a review of the constitution of this country with the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, and this will take place over the next 2 years. It will include a review conducted by iwi Māori and those views will be compared with each other, of course. But the whole idea of this is an opportunity for us to actually talk about: kei hea te Tiriti i tēnei wā? Where is the Treaty in today’s time? We talk about it; the principles are in there. The Rātana Church makes much out of the fact that it has not been honoured—the promise made to Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana. Also at Waitangi we have had disputes over the years about the mana of the Treaty in our land. So where does it stand in terms of our constitution? Our New Zealand constitution is made up of bits and pieces and one of those bits is the Treaty, but in terms of where it actually stands in our country’s mana and legislation, that has not been determined. I am hoping that people will get themselves involved in this constitutional review and put their thoughts forward. That is all I have to say, and kia mihi atu ki ngā iwi i haere ki ngā hui

[I want to acknowledge the people who went to the hui]

—the consultation hui, where they brought their kōrero about their journeys, their feeling for the taonga, and so on, and put it on the floor for everyone to hear, and I congratulate them on their efforts to make sure that the Treaty is involved in the new bill. Tēnā koe.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This is not really the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, this is the “How National Made Quisling Look Like a Patriot Bill”. This is the “How National Made Benedict Arnold Look Like a Loyalist Bill”. Not only is the whole concept of selling our power stations deeply flawed, the process of sale has been designed to gain the maximum benefit for the share traders and the minimum benefit for taxpayers.

What you just heard from Pita Sharples was a valedictory speech and I can say now with certainty that the Māori Party, its three members, will be resigning from this Parliament long before the next election. I do not see Peter Dunne surviving either, because he campaigned on water being a strategic asset. That is the critical component of these sales and he has walked out on his pre-election commitments. This Government has not got a majority for that reason and those members know it full well. The taxpayers are the rightful owners and should be the beneficiaries of any sale, but this will not happen. This is a process arranged by the greedy, for the greedy, just like this is a Government of the greedy, by the greedy, and for the greedy.

There are some vital facts that it is not talking about, and, fortunately, we are back here in time to reveal them. The first is that the sharebrokers and financiers, Aussie banks, merchant bankers, and the so-called markets are going to take $200 million in fees, commissions, underwriting guarantees, and other expenses.

Hon Member: How much?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Two hundred million dollars is going to these people; $200 million of taxpayers’ money is going straight to the middlemen.

So what happened to cutting out the middlemen? In this case, you have got a Government made up of middlemen, and they look after their mates. Why did the National Party receive millions and millions of dollars in election campaign funds? The answer is simple. It was a sound investment by the middlemen, the ones I have just described, who are going to get $200 million, for a start, in all these fees and commissions, whilst they—these Aussie advisers—give the Government independent advice.

Do you like that? They are going to get all this money for giving this advice, and can you imagine them saying this is a bad idea, it is bad economics, the fiscals do not add up? No sir. It was a sound investment by these middlemen, because they knew that hundreds of millions would be returned to them from ordinary New Zealanders by a National Government sell-out. And they did not have to wait long, did they? When the election is just over, next year, or next minute, here come the middlemen—the National Party’s fund-raising experts.

It does not stop there. The Prime Minister has finally let slip that mums and dads will not be at the front of the queue unless they are mum and dad brokers and mum and dad foreign buyers. The smiley face, “Mr Spray and Walk Away”, got away with it all for over 3 years. Say any old statement you like—typical Merrill Lynch—get the deal done, it does not matter what happens, and devil take the hindmost. And here we are, just like the American taxpayers who had to bail out Merrill Lynch for practices we all know about, and now the Prime Minister of this country is exposing New Zealanders to the same behaviour. That smiley-face mask of this Government has all of a sudden gone lopsided and it is not a pretty sight.

If you look at how the Māori Party has betrayed its people over this, it is not a pretty sight, is it? Did you hear that speech? Was it one of principle, of belief? No, Mr Sharples and Tariana Turia know, as does Te Ururoa Flavell, that they have sold their people down the drain, but Pita Sharples gave us a lecture about it. He talked about the principality, and sovereignty of land, and the taonga of ownership. And that would require, I am sure, what we did back in 1998 when we gave up the second most powerful job in this country because National wanted to sell to a foreign owner the company called Contact Energy. Anybody in National can get up and have a go like Mr Coleman today. Mr Coleman, that is my bona fides. I would not do it, so do not get up here and tell the country a whole lot of hypocritical nonsense and drivel. That is the fact.

You know, if you look at how the Māori Party has betrayed its people, it is not a pretty sight. It is legally impossible to interpret this legislation. No court in the world will accept company articles that state 51 percent of the shareholders are subject to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Fifty-one percent are subject to the principles; the other 49 percent are not. Now, that is a legal nullity. And there is the genius, the Attorney-General, Mr Finlayson, who has not a word to say about whether he thinks this is an elegant solution. Does he think that it is actually an elegant solution?

Nobody knows what these principles are in the first place, and for the Māori Party to claim some sort of victory over this makes me wonder how it can ever claim that it represents Māori in any way. There those members are, standing by their so-called principles, whatever they may be, pleading for crumbs from the table of the National Party. It is no joy for Māoridom to see them at the table having their heads rubbed—taken to the cleaners—just because they want to keep the LTD vehicles and the ministerial homes. We know what those baubles are. But we know what it is like to walk out on those baubles on matters of principle. Do not sit over there—[Interruption] No, do not sit over there. I know what it is like. I know what it is like. Do not come along here and try to mislead New Zealanders. When we see something that is rotten, we walk, and we have done it countless times. We do not go along with this sort of quisling, Benedict Arnold behaviour. How can they ever go back to the marae and say to the people “We really fought for you over this one. We got you some principles—51 percent of them.”? They got them some principles—51 percent of them.

Another deep flaw in this legislation is that there is nothing to stop these new companies, post the sale, issuing new non-voting shares. Any issue of any non-voting shares will dilute the Crown’s equity in the companies and reduce its influence in the appointment of directors. And we know that companies are run by directors, not shareholders. The directors on the boards of these companies have wide-ranging powers. They will not be acting in the interests of mums and dads, who have to pay escalating power bills—and the Māori voter is the worst one to be punished by rising prices. So what are they doing? Are they walking over to say to Mr Key “We are finished with you because you are selling out our country.”? No. They are staying. I always knew Peter Dunne would. Peter Dunne is a classic example: he will double-cross that bridge when he comes to it. He is a classic example of the old adage: “I’ll double-cross that bridge when I come to it.” But truly the Māori Party could set an example. It should set an example.

Whatever way you look at it, the people are the real losers, and the power stations will end up not in our hands but in foreign control, and the slide of our economy down the OECD will just go on and on. All the great lessons of Singapore, Norway, and what have you are totally lost on the people who call themselves the National Party, when we all know they are the “International Party”. Give up the name, for goodness’ sake, so we can all recognise you for what you are. The power companies in this country are already operating a price-fixing cartel, aided and abetted by the Commerce Commission. When were the prices regulated?

It will get worse. There are many long, cold winters ahead. We urge New Zealanders not just to go out and sign the petition—but please do that. Get out and do it now in the next 2 months. Make sure you take everybody along: mum, grandad—the whole lot. Sign the petition. But here is what you have got to do as well: get out your pen, your laptop, and your phone and start ringing every National Party backbencher, especially those in the marginal seats. Do not rest up. Call the whole lot up. Keep it going. You have got the power, and tell them the power is not for sale. You have got the power: tell them your power is not for sale. Do not stay at home and ring up the talkback shows only; get out there and go down to their clinics on Monday, when they do hold one—for those who do visit their electorate now and again. I know Mr Key will not be holding one in Helensville.

Brendan Horan: There won’t be one in Dipton.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There will not be one in Dipton, I know. But pay for the extra stamp, write letters, and give them to know that if they go ahead with this sort of treason, you intend to get rid of them, and as soon as possible.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): This debate today on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill is the inevitable consequence of living well beyond our means—well beyond our means. We have deficits, debts, and diaspora. New Zealand public and private debt over the past 15 years has gone from 82 percent of GDP to 134 percent of GDP. As a nation we have not paid our way since 1973. As a Labour Party front-bencher said earlier in the debate, how can you pay your way if you are not exporting enough to pay for the stuff you are buying offshore?

Last year this Government needed to borrow $18.8 billion from the savings of other citizens of other countries, mainly the Chinese. That is the fifth-largest deficit as a percentage of GDP in the OECD. Treasury says we will need to borrow another $12 billion this year. I suppose the good news is that this sale of these assets will produce, at the top end of the green, $7 billion, and that will pay the Crown account deficit for 7 months. But therein lies the challenge for every single member of this Parliament. And it is no good carping on about Government cutting into structural spending, when in Opposition you have no idea how you are going to fund that spending if it is not cut. Therein lies the challenge for the Opposition. Our mounting debts and deficits are met with New Zealanders seeing the writing on the wall, as I hear in this Parliament today the flapping of the wings as the chickens come home to roost.

I predicted early in the first entry into the global recession, some 6 years ago, that unless we urgently cut our cloth we would find ourselves borrowing an insurmountable amount of cash from the savings of others, mainly the Chinese. So many of our people—one every 15 minutes—are fleeing this country for new opportunities in Australia, and that is what this debate should be all about. How do we get the half a million well-educated, highly motivated New Zealanders who live in Australia back to the South-west Pacific to raise their families here? In the year to January we set the dubious record of 38,100 New Zealanders having fled this country.

Those on the other side of this Parliament who worry about selling things need to ask themselves a real hard question: how does New Zealand pay its way? This is the question I and other Ministers from the National coalition in this Parliament are asking in the Cabinet committees every day. I want to put some heavy-duty pigment into the lighter colour of the National Party’s recent reflex blue. We have got to move away from spending, borrowing, and hoping to a place where we deal with the serious current account deficit.

Economic growth, prosperity, and jobs will come from research and development, innovation, and science and technology, along with workplace skills training and opportunity for so many people who are looking for an opportunity to contribute. For too long ACT has watched as successive Governments abandoned fiscal prudence—successive Governments have abandoned fiscal prudence. In the last 5 years of the Labour Government in this country, Government spending as a percentage of GDP went from 29 percent to 35 percent—the highest of any country in the OECD. That is why we fought so hard to have ACT’s Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill introduced into the Public Finance Act to control Government expenditure and keep politicians on a budget. It is like with housekeeping—and you know a lot about housekeeping, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, as all members know about housekeeping. The country cannot keep borrowing for the housekeeping. That is a statement of fact.

This bill is only part of the solution to our wider economic puzzle. When we consider the policy of privatisation, we must remember that it is private enterprise that creates all of the wealth and social prosperity for the citizens of this country. As the World Bank famously wrote, privatisation is now so widespread that it is hard to find countries not using this approach. Over 30 years these privatisations have been studied to death. Overwhelmingly, privatisation has increased the productivity of the privatised enterprise. So if we are not sitting in this Parliament today talking about selling these assets so that we do not have to borrow more money from the Chinese, what proposition is the Opposition putting up to pay our way in the world as we come out of the second tranche of this global recession?

It is worth noting that the New Zealand Government holds assets worth $245 billion. If we take the figure of $7 billion as a percentage of $245 billion, we are talking this afternoon in this House of less than 3 percent of our structural asset so that we do not have to borrow and pay the interest on that borrowing.

I want to remind the New Zealand Labour Party that the Labour Government privatised Telecom. Would Labour buy back Telecom? The Labour Government privatised more assets than have ever been privatised by this Parliament and this country. Bob Hawke, of the Labor Government in Australia, privatised Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank. Even Julia Gillard is not talking about buying back Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank. Jean Chrétien privatised Canadian National Railway in Canada. The Canadians are not having a debate about the State re-owning that asset.

It cannot be repeated too much: this country finds itself in a financial mouse wheel. We are at the crossroads. Four years ago it was $2 billion worth of debt, this year it is $50 billion worth of debt, and in 3 years it will be $75 billion worth of debt. And today we are talking about selling, at the top of the green, 3 percent of our total economic infrastructure base in these transactions. It makes more sense than just borrowing and spending and hoping. I want to hear from the parliamentary Labour Party exactly where it proposes to curtail Government expenditure so that one day we will not wake up, come into this Parliament, and say: “What else can we sell? What else can we sell? What is there left to sell?”.

This Government needs to cut its cloth. I have told the Government that we need to lift the age of superannuation from 65 to 67—that is why I would not take it. And that alone would save $1.5 billion a year. A small interest rate on the $12.2 billion worth of student loans would save $550 million a year. We need to cut our cloth; we need to live within our means; we need investment, growth, and jobs; we need to grow the economy; and we need to pay our way. And I am here to support this Government so that the Opposition is not sitting on this side of the House come 3 years less 100 days.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): The most interesting thing about the speech just completed by John Banks is that it was a National slot in this debate. But where are the National Ministers? The previous National slot was taken by a Māori Party co-leader, even though they are voting against the Mixed Ownership Model Bill—probably the most important piece of National legislation so far in this Parliament. Where are the senior Ministers? Was John Key going to speak to this? Oh, no.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member cannot refer to the absence of members.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Why did John Key not take a call? Why did Bill English not take a call? I can refer to the fact that they did not take a call; it is a matter of fact that they did not take a call. Why did Steven Joyce, the Minister for Economic Development, so-called, not take a call? Because they are politicians enough to know that New Zealanders know you cannot sell your way to a brighter future. You cannot sell off land, sell off the law, sell off our assets, sell off our hope, and have a brighter future. I agree with one thing the member who has just resumed his seat said: one New Zealander every 15 minutes is voting with their feet to get out of this broken dream they call Godzone.

Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The speaking slots that are allocated to National, the Māori Party, United—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What I want to do in the remaining 8 minutes or so of this speech is to go through some of the arguments the Government has put up and to show they have more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. The first one is that you need asset sales to solve public debt. Well, here are the problems with that argument. Firstly, 85 percent of New Zealand’s total international debt is private debt, not public debt—only 15 percent is public debt—and this sell makes the private debt problem worse. Why is that? Because if “Joe Kiwi”, instead of investing in their bank, buys these shares, the bank funds their debt offshore, thus making private debt worse. Or, if foreign buyers buy it and pay Kiwi dollars for it, that makes the foreign private debt worse. So this will have the opposite effect. Do not, ladies and gentleman, allow this Government to pull the blue wool over your eyes. This is not a debt reduction measure; this is a “lining the pockets of the 1 percent in the ticket clippers” measure. That is what this is about.

Andrew Williams: Helping their mates.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Helping their mates. Two billion dollars, as Russel Norman said, lost per annum on the Government’s tax switch, and the 1 percent who cleaned up are the 1 percent who will clean up these shares. The same people the Government has acted on behalf of so far will be the people who benefit from this.

The next myth that needs busting is that somehow selling these is good money management. Well, how can it be? These assets average a 6 percent return—a 16 percent total shareholder return, including capital returns. They cost 4 percent Government debt to service. That is the Crown cost of capital; the public is making money on holding them. Why would a private investor buy them on the current prices for power? TrustPower said its hurdle rate is 8 percent. That is its weighted cost of capital. Infratil’s target rate is 20 percent. I was at its dinner last night; that is what its annual report says. Why would it buy these shares at these prices and not put power prices up? Because that is the only way you can get higher returns out of a power company.

The second point: the Government loses $100 million a year because the saving of interest is $266 million but the loss of dividends is $360 million a year—a net deficit of $100 million a year worse off. That is excluding the $100 million to $300 million one-off cost of paying the ticket clippers: a year’s worth of dividends transferred to Macquarie Group, the latter-day Fay Richwhite of this world, and the other brokers and bankers, so that this Government’s mates can give it a pat on the back. I want to see a very detailed financial disclosure from the last two elections. I want to know who has been lining the pockets of the National Party in response to that favour.

Well, the next financial problem is that you do not know what the returns are going to be, because the Government does not know what the sale price is going to be, partly for those reasons, partly for the high cost, partly because we do not know how much price rise the public will stand. That is why Bill English, embarrassingly, called it a guesstimate. At least he had the integrity to say he did not know, and that puts him a step ahead of the Prime Minister, who once again just made it up.

The third myth that needs busting is that New Zealanders are at the front of the queue. My backside they are! If the Government wanted New Zealanders at the front of the queue, it would have put a clause in the legislation preventing excessive foreign sale. But did it? No, it did not. There is no clause in this bill to prevent sale to foreigners. Indeed, Treasury’s advice is that that is absolutely necessary in order to maintain the sale price. No prohibition—and what does that mean? It means the “Kiwis at the front of the queue” line is just spin—just spin—and New Zealanders can tell the difference. Why should New Zealanders pay again for assets they already own? Why should they be asked to do that at a time when money is tight and most New Zealanders cannot pay their own mortgage, let alone be told that the only way the country can pay its mortgage is to sell the house, even if we end up paying more for rent afterwards? It is economic lunacy.

Hon Tau Henare: What a silly man!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Congratulations on the member’s wedding. I hope he gave his wife a better present than the one the Government is giving the public in this bill.

What really worries me is that loss of control is inevitable. Here are three reasons why. The first is equity dilution. The Government first said it would sell 49 percent, and then someone told it: “Well, if you do, and the new board, which is not an SOE board, has a profitable proposal, you’re actually bound to put in more cash.” “Oh, goodness!”—the Government members said—“Oh, goodness! Well, we won’t sell the whole 49 percent at once.” But they still think they are going to sell 49 percent. What happens when they have sold 49 percent and the next project comes along? Will they refuse to kick in the extra $100 million? Where are they going to get it from, Mr Banks? This Government is winding the New Zealand economy down as fewer and fewer New Zealanders are left to power it up.

There is no Treaty protection. Here is the sadness of Pita Sharples’ position. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either the whole asset is covered, but the public, the taxpayer, is picking up 100 percent of the risk for 51 percent of the money, or the Māori Party has been sold a pup. And there is Peter Dunne, as always the swing vote. But, unusually this time, he matters. This bill is the “Peter Dunne Political Epitaph Bill”. He will go down in history as the perpetual 150-pound straw in the wind who, this time, blew the wrong way—who, this time, sold out a generation by selling off billions of dollars of their birthright. He can hang his head in shame. I like him—he is an integrity member. But I am sad for him, because his legacy is now one of sadness and shame.

New Zealanders do not want this bill. They know you cannot pay your mortgage by selling your house. They know your future should not be sold out by selling your past. They know the Government is not protecting them from foreign buyers. They know this is economic lunacy. Why does the Prime Minister not have the wisdom—I cannot question his courage—to take a call in this debate and answer these questions?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Can I begin by acknowledging the flattery of the member who has just resumed his seat, David Cunliffe. But just as he was inaccurate on my weight, he was inaccurate on many other things in what he had to say. I want to make it clear on behalf of United Future that we will be supporting the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, because we think it is sensible, we think it is what New Zealand requires, and we think it is in the best interests of this country in the long term. During this debate many things have been said, many epithets have been thrown around, and many sobriquets issued. Most of them are utterly irrelevant and utterly erroneous and grossly overstate what is happening at the moment. We are not selling our heritage or our assets. We are selling a partial share float in 3 percent of the Crown’s assets, and 97 percent will remain in the control of New Zealanders, if that be the phrase that is so important.

What is really critical here is how we ensure that these State trading companies, which these members opposite are so proud of, continue to work for the benefit of New Zealanders. In a rapidly changing international and technological environment, when we want to get smart, green technology in place, for example, it costs. It costs and it has to be paid for. Here are the options. They are very simple. If the Government of the day wants to boost the growth of those companies, it has about three broad options open to it. It either borrows more to fund them, and we are in debt as it is and seeking to reduce that level of debt; it allows the companies to raise charges to the public, and we have heard the bleats already about the fear of increased power prices, so that is clearly a no go; or it raises taxes. They are the three options. When you start to fiddle with the tax system, you set off a whole chain of other events that reduce New Zealanders’ capacity to be part of a productive, growing economy.

So the conundrum the Government faces—and the same Government previously in office faced exactly the same conundrum and chose to do nothing—is that you either let things stagnate as they are, or you seek more innovative ways of boosting the capital base of these entities. The mixed-ownership model, which will allow the sale of a limited shareholding, a minority shareholding, is, in my view, a novel way to do that provided there are adequate safeguards put in place. Those safeguards need to be a very clear statement, as contained in this legislation, that the Crown will always maintain 51 percent as a minimum control of these entities. So the argument about overseas shareholders or other shareholders coming in and having their way simply fails on the grounds that they will not have the majority. The majority shareholding, the Crown as the protector of the public interest, will always be in a position to protect that public interest.

The second point that gets overlooked in this debate, when we talk about selling out to foreigners or to other dubious types in New Zealand who will take over, is that the legislation makes it absolutely clear—at United Future’s insistence, and I am proud of this—that no entity, corporate or individual, can hold more than 10 percent. So the idea that somehow this is a wholesale sell-out simply is not borne out by the facts. The challenge we then have to come back to is what is a respectable vision of the way in which we develop our power companies in the future. I am hearing interjections to my right. I suspect they come from the Greens, who are always telling us—with some validity, I might add—about the need to improve production technologies, to go to smarter, more efficient ways of energy use. We are going to have to invest in those technologies, and that will cost, and the choice that a Government has to make is where that investment comes from. I think that the opportunity for individual investment in a minority capacity and the opportunity for some smart investment are ones that a wise Government would not throw up.

I notice that what is being proposed here is not a radical new solution. It is the solution that several mainstream Labour Governments in other parts of the world, like the Blair Government, like the Keating Government in the 1990s in Australia, and even the like Carr Government in New South Wales, have long since adopted. It is the solution that Labour itself, as late as the end of 2010, was proposing when it was talking about mixed-ownership models for the assets of State-owned enterprises. It is the solution that New Zealand First used to talk about, up to a maximum of 24.9 percent. So the reality is that all we are arguing about here are the numbers: 51, or 49, or 24.9. Everyone has been around the park on this issue. Everyone has advocated a version of this policy at some stage or another, and now, because it is being implemented and circumstances see some people on one side of the House and some on the other, those who used to advocate it now find they have to oppose it. That is not in the public interest of New Zealand.

I want to make one strong final point, and it is this: a lot of people have said in public commentary that because, allegedly, my vote is critical—it is actually no different from anyone else’s vote—I have to exercise moral courage or some sort of higher standard. What is important in this, as in any other issue, is integrity. What the public of New Zealand really do not like are politicians who say one thing before an election and do something else after it. I invite every member of this House to look at every statement United Future made prior to the election, and every statement made subsequently, and try to draw a difference between them—because there is no difference. What we said right throughout was that we did not support the wholesale sale of assets—that is not on the agenda. We did support the limited sale in respect of the energy companies and Air New Zealand, provided there were controls in terms of the minimum Crown participation and the maximum individual participation—and that is in the legislation. And then the same people who preach integrity have the gall to say to me that having achieved everything that we said—

Hon David Cunliffe: Goodbye.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Goodbye to you, Mr Cunliffe. You have already gone. I say to the people who preach, with some gall, that I should exercise integrity that I have done that. I will continue to do that, and that is why we are supporting this legislation.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I seek leave to table a document from the Salvation Army called The Growing Divide, which may—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Is this in the public domain?

Hon Members: Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, it will not be tabled. He cannot seek leave. This is a split call between Mana and Labour. [Interruption] Order! I am calling a member. I will ring the bell with a minute to go.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. This morning I sent an open letter to overseas investors via all of the biggest newspapers in the G20 countries where most interest is likely to come from for the purchase of shares in the assets that this National Government is trying to flog off. It reads like this: “Tena koutou katoa … The New Zealand government is proposing to sell shares in five State Owned Enterprises … to repay overseas debt. That proposal is opposed by an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who believe that: Assets built up through the hard work of generations of New Zealanders should not be sold to investors whose primary objective is not the public good, but private profit; … Electricity assets in particular, should be held by the government on behalf of all New Zealanders, for the benefit of all New Zealanders,”—and hopefully—“at a price we can [all] afford; … As the indigenous people of Aotearoa, Maori have been even stronger in their opposition.

The Maori view is that no asset sales should proceed until Maori interests in those assets have been properly addressed. Maori have already made application to the Waitangi Tribunal to block the legislation. A separate case is [being prepared to go to] the High Court. Steps are being taken to take the case to the United Nations (under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and Maori groups have pledged to take action against sales to overseas interests which impact on our sovereignty. In a related case, following months of public protest, the High Court has called on the NZ government to reconsider a decision to approve the sale of farm land to overseas interests.

So today I think it only proper to send a warning to overseas investors—steer clear of any share offer in the above [New Zealand] SOE’s. The purchase of these shares is likely to see you caught up in legal battles and direct action from citizens determined to protect their own interests, both of which will be lengthy and costly and have an adverse impact on the value of your investment.

As the leader of the MANA Movement and Member of the New Zealand House of Representatives,” for the electorate of Tai Tokerau “I wish to advise that MANA is opposed to the privatisation of state assets and will strongly argue for any shares sold to overseas investors to be returned to New Zealand hands.” Overseas investors, “you have been warned …”

Mana opposes this bill because it is a fraud. When the Government says these companies will have improved public scrutiny, it is lying. The Mixed Ownership Model Bill specifically states—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member cannot say that the Government is lying, so I would ask the member to withdraw that comment. I also remind the member of the Standing Orders. In the review of the Standing Orders, one is not allowed to read their speech straight off a script, or in this case off a machine. According to page 28 of the review of the Standing Orders, which were accepted by this House late last year, you may refer to your notes, but you cannot just read them verbatim. I just remind the member of that.

Metiria Turei: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Tariana Turia: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have two points of order. I will take Metiria Turei first, I am sorry.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in reference to clarify this new rule about reading speeches, my understanding from the review of the Standing Orders and from the Standing Orders Committee discussions on the issue is that it was reaffirmed that it is a convention that MPs preferably not speak directly from written notes, but that it is not a rule. The Speaker may use his or her discretion, but members are entitled to use their notes as a guide. It is not a rule according to the Standing Orders Committee that MPs do not read their speeches.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. Well, as you rightly said they can use them to refer to, and that is exactly why I mentioned to the honourable member about reading a speech verbatim. The Standing Orders, and I refer to the report that was adopted by this House—it is on page 28—sets it out clearly there under “Reading of speeches”. So I have mentioned that to the member. He has 2 minutes remaining of his speech.

Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to follow up on the matter that Metiria Turei has raised in the House. My understanding is that the wording is “where possible, members should not read speeches”, and it depends on the technicality of the speeches. So my understanding is that for some speeches it is perfectly possible for you to read your notes. I want to be clear about that, because we have some Treaty speeches being made in the House tonight, many of them of a technical nature, and I do not want to see interruption. To be frank with you, Mr Assistant Speaker, you were sitting in the Chair when I was interrupted by the Labour Party in a speech that I was making and you allowed the interruption. It is very clear that only the Speaker can interrupt a member who is speaking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member is correct. Can I just refer members to page 28 of the review. The member is correct. The last couple of sentences pick up on the point the member made and relate to where a member can read their speech: “Such circumstances may relate to the technical nature of the material under discussion, or the relative experience of the member concerned. There will, however, be occasions when it is not inappropriate for speeches to be read.” So that picks up on the point, and later on in the debates, as the member mentioned, when we move on to the Treaty settlements it could well be appropriate. Hone Harawira has 2 minutes remaining.

HONE HARAWIRA: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I have already ruled. The member will continue his speech.

HONE HARAWIRA: When the Government says these companies will have improved public scrutiny, I would like to point out that the legislation specifically states that these newly established companies will no longer be subject to the Official Information Act or the Ombudsmen Act. When the Government tells you that it has Māori support for these proposals, I would like to point out that not one Māori—not one—who attended the 10 consultation hui all around the country supported the proposal to open up the sale of State-owned assets to overseas investors.

When the Government says that mom and pop investors will be at the front of the queue, I would like to point out that there are no provisions in the legislation to guarantee that New Zealanders will get preferential treatment or even a dedicated percentage of the shares. When the Government tells you that it is not possible to bind non-Crown groups to Treaty provisions, I would like to point out that the Government already imposes constraints on third parties through Treaty memorials over State-owned enterprise properties.

Mana opposes this bill because it is an act of treason against the very people whom we are supposed to represent. Because it is deceitful to Māori and an insult to our founding—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member cannot accuse anyone of treason. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that comment.

HONE HARAWIRA: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not accuse anyone of treason. Would you like me to repeat the words? I might have to refer to my notes!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is trifling with the Chair. I will ask the member to continue his speech. If I was in error in the interpretation, then I was in error. I will just ask the member, with a minute remaining, to finish his speech, and along the lines that I mentioned before. It should be a speech. This is a debating chamber; it is not a speech contest. I ask the member to keep that in mind.

HONE HARAWIRA: Mana opposes this bill because it is deceitful to Māori and an insult to our founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi, and because it ignores the reality that once those shares are sold, investors will demand an ever-increasing return, which will come about courtesy of more and more price rises. We already know the horror stories of families who cannot afford to pay their power bills—no heating, no lights, often no refrigeration. We know only too well the cost to society of the massive costs associated with poor people suffering from the effects of cold and damp housing. This bill will simply increase that poverty.

Finally, I call on all Mana members to take whatever action is necessary to expose the greed behind these plans—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, for this 5-minute contribution. This is one of the signature policies that clearly distinguishes our approach to the stewardship of State assets from that of our colleagues on the other side of the House. In fact, these are legacy assets, and it is a shame that we have been unable to turn them into something akin to a legacy fund or a sovereign fund that would continue to generate revenue, continue to generate dividends, to meet the obvious costs that the State does face.

There are two things that, in the short time I have, I want to focus on. No. 1, I want to focus on this half-baked Treaty clause. Mark my words, that Treaty clause will be invoked in the most unthinkable ways as we sit here as parliamentarians today. I predict that in time to come, when the majority owner of these State-owned enterprises is called to make a decision—and there will have to be a commercial decision—as to whether or not an asset requiring substantial consensus amongst the owners ought to be further alienated, or to make an additional call on capital, some Māori, some iwi, some hapū, or some group will invoke the Treaty clause. When Geoffrey Palmer originally put the Treaty clause in there, minds such as Richard Prebble and others were prepared to tolerate it, because they saw it as an innocuous, harmless piece of filigree. Well, I have learnt in my short time both in politics and in Māori life that once you bring the Treaty into areas where hitherto it has not really been—and it really has not been a half-caste Treaty. This Treaty has been for the partners of the Treaty, but at the moment it is almost like a half-caste Treaty, and that is why that reference will not actually deliver what the Māori Party is on about.

But that is actually an irrelevancy, because what the Māori Party has been told is that it should have openly repudiated and opposed this sales process. Quietly it has encouraged those of our iwi—and, unfortunately, the iwi leaders are sovereign masters or mistresses over their own money, and they will spend it how they like. The Māori Party has been saying to them “We can’t stop the bill, and there’s an opportunity for you to buy.” A person who is not in this House but possibly will be reported to by members in the gallery is Dennis Barnes. Recently this individual, the chief executive officer of Contact Energy, stated, really, what is going to happen. What is going to happen at the moment is that within the energy sector you cannot get a decent level of return. The Crown can get a decent level of return, but private investors, unless they buy the energy assets at a very cheap rate—and there is no point selling them unless you are going to maximise your sale price, and that is why you have had to defang the Treaty and leave it there as a tekoteko. Mr Dennis Barnes has said, in respect of the only way you are going to get a decent return, that he would not go with a $300 million proposal to his eight-person board—this is what he said to the Contact Energy board, and he said it to the energy meeting—because you cannot get a decent return.

The only way you can get a decent return is by generating profits. The only way you are going to be able to generate profits, in the face of this slack economy, which in many respects is a consequence of poor Government policy, is to ratchet up prices. The only way you can get a reasonable and improved return is to ratchet up prices. So where are those prices going to come from? They are going to come from industry, at a time when we are concerned about the fact that it is only 33 percent—the stubborn statistic—of our GDP that remains in the tradable sector. That sector is going to face greater costs. Communities and companies are all going to face greater costs. One consequence of this particular policy is that power prices are going one way.

There is a great deal that has been said that this is absolutely necessary in order to meet the fiscal costs of the Government’s capital upgrade programme. I have taken the time, and I may be one of the few people outside of people who study Treasury documents who had a look at the infrastructure plan. What I can make of it is that the sum of at least $50 billion is being sought after. Despite what Mr Ryall and others may say, our current level of Crown debt is not of a Grecian variety. It was passed on by us in a very fit state to the current Government. It has grown, and I will accept some points the Government has been making: the Christchurch earthquake, and dealing with the turn-down in the economy. But let us not forget that there is ample scope for long-term capital assets to be funded from long-term bond issues and long-term borrowing, not sold for short-term consumption. At one level we are being told that the assets have to be sold, and that the funds are going to be put back into irrigation and schools; in another way we are being told it will improve and deepen the capital markets; and in another way we are being told that at the pith of this idea is ideology. That is what distinguishes us on this issue. The ideological conception that we have is different on this side from that on the other side.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I rise to support the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. Ownership matters, and if any members need convincing they should look at TV3’s report on the Port of Tauranga last evening, where the company’s productivity and progress was noted. The comments of David Hone, an employee of 18 years, were powerful. He said that he, like 90 percent of the workers at the Port of Tauranga, had shares in the company. He said: “Working in the place that you’re a part-owner of just makes you want to make sure that it works both for you and for everyone else around.”

Ownership matters, and people’s behaviour changes when they have a stake in their company. One of the many good results of this bill, it seems to me, is that the employees of Mighty River Power and the other energy companies will at last have the opportunity to buy shares directly in the company that they work for, and I am sure that will go a long way to improving the productivity of this country.

This is a very significant piece of legislation, and part of National’s plan to deliver stronger, enduring economic growth. The issue was front and centre at all the debates during the campaign last year. It was signalled and it was well explained that it was primarily a key part of the Government’s plan to carry on investing in this country—investing in modern schools, hospitals, priority public infrastructure—without exposing the economy to so much international debt. What happened? The people of New Zealand turned out and returned this National Government with the highest popular vote in many decades. Most people saw through the overblown rhetoric of “selling off our assets; flogging off our assets”, and understood that the Government will continue to own 51 percent of these assets, and it will prevent any other shareholder having more than 10 percent. So no amount of fear-mongering can overwhelm that reality.

Other speakers have touched on many of the good arguments in support of this legislation. I want to touch on three. The first is that this bill will reduce our requirements for extra international debt. There is so much that we want to invest in, in this country, and indeed this Government expects to spend more than $20 billion buying new assets over the next 4 years, but there is a limit to our resources. Mixed ownership will free up $5 billion to $7 billion to invest in the Future Investment Fund in priority areas such as schools and hospitals.

Meantime, each of these four companies that we are talking about will need substantial capital investments over the next few years, and in basic terms the Crown now will need to invest only 51 percent of that new capital, rather than the 100 percent that it does at the moment. Again, the private sector can now carry some of that burden, and reduce the need for the State to be borrowing as much. The alternative is a lot more debt, which we would have to borrow on fragile and volatile international markets, and anybody who has been watching the news recently will see the dangers of borrowing more money at a time like this. We may be able to raise that money today, but who knows what it is going to be like in the future?

The Government’s approach is the most prudent in these dangerous times. We have heard again—

Chris Hipkins: Who wrote this?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: I wrote it, thank you. We have heard again—

Chris Hipkins: Stop reading it then.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: I am not reading it. I am just referring to it.

Hon Tony Ryall: It’s very well written.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you very much. We have heard again other misplaced arguments about the dividend stream being higher than the borrowed costs. This line of reasoning misses the point entirely. It ignores the all-important element of risk. Most people do not follow that logic in their own lives. Most people do not borrow $100,000 on their mortgage in order to buy shares, because they know that there are more risks in shares. They do not do that, because they correctly factor in the amount of risk.

Another benefit from this bill is that it will deepen New Zealand’s capital markets, and broaden the pool of investment for New Zealand investors and New Zealand savers. This is not just the 1 percent. It is the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who invest in KiwiSaver and many other investments who have the opportunity now to have a stake in these companies, and that is a good thing.

Finally, the primary benefit, it seems to me, out of this mixed-ownership model is that it will bring the disciplines of the private sector into ownership of these companies. The market test generated by the stock market, and the signal provided by the share price as to what is happening to the value of the company and its return on capital, are likely to be more transparent and accurate than any system in place to monitor an entirely State-owned enterprise. I have no doubt that the disciplines imposed by the public trading floor will benefit these companies. In conclusion, mixed ownership is a smart and sensible policy that will strengthen the New Zealand economy, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Mixed Ownership Model Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I move, That the Mixed Ownership Model Bill be reported back to the House by 16 July 2012.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave that we have one debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought that there be one debate on Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. There will be one debate.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): There are two Supplementary Order Papers. They have been approved by the iwi. The first one is the technical Supplementary Order Paper 6 required to break up the omnibus structure of the bill into two bills. The second one, Supplementary Order Paper 7, is required to correct several minor drafting and technical errors, and also to clarify the intent of the provisions of the deed of settlement in respect of the settlement of the historical claims. The jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal is preserved, but it is amended to ensure that the tribunal can complete its reporting on the Te Urewera inquiry and make findings, but not recommendations, on the claims relating to Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I want to take just a brief call. The Green Party will be supporting this Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill. My colleague David Clendon was on the Māori Affairs Committee, I understand, when this bill was being discussed there. We support the bill and we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers, but I do think it is worthwhile putting on the record for the House that there are still some ongoing issues with this settlement. There are still concerns that some iwi and some hapū are excluded from, or do not yet have access to or a seat on, the River Forum, for example, which is responsible for developing the documents on how the rivers are to be cared for and managed in the future. I think that is an issue for those who are excluded from responsibility for decision making over areas, over rohe. I note too that there were concerns from the submitters about the extent to which the Rangitaiki River document as incorporated into regional plans is at a lesser status than that in the Waikato River settlement. This one is related to that, I understand, and there was some disappointment that it will not have the same status as the Waikato River planning documents do.

One of the major issues for iwi that arises again and again—and we will continue to see it through settlements—is the extent to which they are separated out from the actual decision-making that happens over the environmental issues that are pertinent to them. In this case, it is the rivers. They are entitled to be decision makers over what happens. In this legislation, in this settlement, you can see how layers of bureaucracy have been put between these iwi and hapū and their right to be decision makers over their own rivers. In part, that is expressed in the disappointment that their river document will not have the same status as the Waikato one. The regional council will be able to recognise and provide for it, but is not required to take it into account in its planning. It is not part of the regional plans as a first step, if you like, for the decision-making process.

I just wanted to place it on the record that despite these concerns, the Green Party will support the bill. We support the iwi and hapū having further engagement with the River Forum, and will continue to fight to have their voices heard at the decision-making table, rather than as separated-out layers underneath that. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 6.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for the Nga Wai o Maniopoto (Waipa River) Bill to be dealt with as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not.

Preamble, Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I will take just a brief call to explain the Supplementary Order Paper, which deals with clause 36. It contains a transitional process to extend the vision and strategy to include the Upper Waipā River, which is contingent on what at the time of drafting was a future event, namely the coming into being of the Waikato River Authority and the initial review of the vision and strategy by that authority. It is no longer workable in that form because the river authority has come into being and in the meantime has completed its initial review on the vision and strategy, hence the need for the Supplementary Order Paper.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Again, I want to take just a short call in the Committee stage of the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill to set out and put on the record some of the issues that were raised in the Māori Affairs Committee on the legislation. Again, it is companion legislation to the Waikato-Tainui raupatu claim and to the management of the river, but this one is very specific about the Waipā River.

It is worth noting for the House that this river and the surrounding area were subject to serious degradations as a result of development of these areas that was contrary to the wishes of the hapū and the iwi for whom these areas are their rohe. They talked about how the river has been degraded over time from diversions from the building of stock banks, from sewage pouring into the river, and from farm runoff pouring into the river. They talked about land being destroyed by quarrying and farming, and from housing developments over which they had no authority or control.

There was one story told of soil from the urupā, from Ngāti Ruanui, being used to build a stopbank on the river, and that human remains were found to be part of the building of that stopbank. These are the consequences of the colonisation process that has trapped and locked Māori out of the decision making over their own lands. We are now in the process, through settlements, of trying to find some redress for what are very serious harms to that land and to that decision making, authority, and tino rangatiratanga of these hapū and iwi.

Although the settlements are supposed to provide some redress, actually you simply cannot provide redress for the degree of loss and harm that has been caused over time. So I think we need to acknowledge the generosity of Māori in even beginning to agree to settlement processes and settlement legislation like this. It is enormously generous that Māori agree to participate in this process. Part of it comes from the duress of poverty, that there is real desire to gain some resources so that Māori can work and do this work, and also a very strong desire to be involved in the clean-up and the fixing of the damage that was caused by others to their land and to their waters. They make enormous sacrifices in order to find some mechanism to do this work. That has to be put on the public record in this House, so that in time—because these things will be revisited regardless of how much the Government wants this to be full and final—these issues will be revisited by the descendants of these claimants. It is important that these issues are put on the table and on the public record.

We will be supporting this legislation. I am not aware of any major objections to this at this stage, but I was not on the select committee and did not hear the submissions. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 4 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Preamble, Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for all provisions of this bill to be treated as one for the purposes of debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. There will be one debate.

Preamble, Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Just very briefly on Supplementary Order Paper 13, that is a couple of pages, but really it boils down to a couple of propositions. First, the earthquake slip conservation area is now identified in the Department of Conservation’s lands registry as the earthquake slip marginal strip, and the Supplementary Order Paper reflects that name change. The Supplementary Order Paper also includes a number of technical amendments to update drafting, and promote standardisation with corresponding provisions in other Treaty settlement legislation.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): This Ngāti Pāhauwera settlement claim does have some ongoing issues around the mandate and objections to the settlement of these claims, which again do need to be put on the record for the Committee. There are overlapping claims that are still in dispute in relation to the Wai claims that are being settled here and the lands that are being settled. There continue to be mandate problems. What we have seen with this settlement, as we will see with a number as they go on, is that the Office of Treaty Settlements is increasingly OK with a 30 percent response rate for a mandate and for ratification of a settlement, or lower. I recognise the difficulties in getting quite a few thousand—50 percent or more—of the beneficiaries of these settlements to be engaged in the process. The fact that it has become the norm now to accept a very low mandate is increasingly problematic. It is all well and good to get 90 percent support, but if you are talking about only a few hundred people out of quite a few thousand, then it simply does not have the mandate to continue with the settlement.

The Government’s programme to drive these settlements through—as we see from the way that this process is working today—because it wants to get the Treaty issues settled is leaving those who are the wronged party in these negotiations at even greater disadvantage. The process does not allow for them to engage effectively with the issues. The process is not designed for them, or by them. It does not deal properly with their actual needs. We are seeing that reflected in the very low turnout for mandate votes and for ratification. As a result, there are still ongoing problems. With this settlement there continues to be an incorporation that has continued to object to the claim. There are still tribunal claims that have not been settled, I understand, over this claim. There are claims of beneficiaries who have been actively excluded from the voting and mandating process.

The argument from the Government side is that these issues should be dealt with by the iwi and hapū, and that is right., But it is very difficult for iwi and hapū to resolve issues like that if they are also being driven by a political timetable that is trying to get the assessment done, because of some farce that the Treaty can be settled. From the Green Party point of view, the Treaty cannot be settled. As someone said recently, it is a deal; it is not a settlement. It is a deal done today, in today’s circumstances, under today’s political constraints. It is not a settlement of the issues when you are talking about the abrogation or the destruction of tino rangatiratanga, the removal of rights to be decision makers, and control over their own people.

So this one continues to have problems, and I think there will be ongoing problems despite the fact that this House will support this legislation to pass. The Green Party will continue to support this bill. We did for the first and second readings, and we will continue to support it. But we do want to note that this is an ongoing problem, and there will be continuing issues with this settlement. We will support those claimants as much as we can during that process. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 13 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Preamble, Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for all provisions of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, including the schedules, to be taken as one debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Again, there is a very technical Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 10. It is required for the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill to make amendments to certain transitional and other arrangements in Part 4 of the bill. In particular, amendments are required to clarify the status of the Porou Ariki Trust, after inclusion of the trust in Part 4. Those changes are to clarify the status of the trust and they are included in amendments to clauses 129, 132, and 151. The Supplementary Order Paper also addresses a number of other technical matters that have been identified, but nothing of great substance.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to rise to speak to the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and to affirm the Green Party will continue to support the progress of this bill, as we have done to date. We offer our respect and regards to ngā hapū katoa o Ngati Porou, to all of those on both the Crown side and on the Ngati Porou side who have worked very hard over many decades, indeed, to bring this settlement to fruition. However, as is the case with so many of these bills, our support is somewhat qualified. It is almost given with a degree of regret, because we recognise there are so many inherent flaws in the process underpinning the settlement of these bills. As my colleague has just recently mentioned, the danger is that these settlements, rather than being true and just settlements, are downgraded almost to the level of deals, to the best deal that can be done on a given day given the pressure to accept what is on offer at a given time and place, and the need to bring to an end the, in many cases, decades of suffering and recrimination.

One primary problem with these settlements is the issue of large natural groupings. Since 1999 it has been Government policy to deal with iwi rather than hapū and whānau, and more recently there is a clearly stated preference to deal with large natural groupings. This is no secret. In the Office of Treaty Settlements advice to claimants it is spelt out in the well-known so-called red book that the Crown strongly prefers to negotiate settlements with large natural groupings of tribal interests, rather than individual hapū or whānau within a tribe. This is done on the basis, we are told, that it is easier to manage and work with them, easier to deal with overlapping interests, and reduces costs to both Crown and claimants. We are also told that in this way the issues become more workable around redress, and cost-effective for these large natural groupings. It has been argued on many occasions in the court, in the judiciary, in the Waitangi Tribunal, and elsewhere that policy processes based purely on Government definitions, without seeking input into the most appropriate Māori social structure, effectively can be seen as perpetuating breaches rather than resolving them. Choosing to adopt a blanket approach, a very selective approach, in the Government’s determining with whom it will negotiate has interfered with traditional relationships between iwi, between hapū, in ways that are not helpful and that continue to create new problems.

A few days ago I presented to Parliament a petition relevant to this bill, the petition of Barney Tūpara and 1,053 others who are highlighting that there is a community of people on the East Coast who feel completely excluded from the settlement that is being passed today. This community of people believe that their rights are being transgressed, a continuation of transgressions going back at least to the mid - 19th century. It would be extremely unwise of me, with my whakapapa to Ngāpuhi, to pretend any expertise, or knowledge of the debates that are occurring on the coast about who has mana whenua, whose rights are being dealt with, but I do feel that as an MP I have a duty to put on record the fact that there is a significant community of people on the coast who feel they have been overlooked. Any failure of the Crown to deal properly in an inclusive way with all of the people, with all Māori, with all interests will lead to a degradation of respect for the Treaty process. We will see less than optimal outcomes and inevitably, as Māori often say, “We’ll be back.” Having said that, the Greens continue to support this bill and we give our goodwill to Ngati Porou.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I know the last two speakers, Mr Finlayson and Mr Clendon, and respect their points of view on division, and that. Can I assure you that, having worked with the last three groups of iwi, Labour is supportive of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and we will support the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill as it goes all the way through. I think it is important for us to understand that people do not differentiate in this Whare here just on numbers or letters that they get. They have to live through the issues that are relevant to the hau kāinga. I just want to say that, with all due respect, and I accept what my learned colleague over there was saying. So we will be supporting this bill and the other bills.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into two bills; the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill with amendment; the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill with amendment; and the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill

Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill

First Readings

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for Whānau Ora) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move at the appropriate time that the bills be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, and I want to advise the Speaker that I will using my notes.

I would like to welcome the representatives of Maraeroa A and B Blocks who are here today for this very special occasion. The endeavours of people such as Glen Katu, Edward Moana Emery, Brian Stanley, and Piripi Crown continue to bear fruit, and this private bill today, the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill, is a testimony to their dedication and their commitment to working together. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

Today is a significant moment for the descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks, as we acknowledge their historical Treaty grievances and seek to move forward. Although we look forward to realising the potential that exists in this settlement for the generations to come, we acknowledge and honour the legacy provided by the leadership of Charlie Wehi, the original claimant, and Murdoch Paki, a much-respected member of Te Maru o Rereahu Trust.

It is almost a year to the day that I joined with Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Rereahu, and Ngāti Tūwharetoa at Pā Harakeke to sign the deed on behalf of the Crown. It is a great privilege to be able now to act on the intent of that deed and to be able to sponsor one of the two bills being introduced today under the cognate procedure, namely the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill.

The two bills being introduced today are the final steps towards the completion of a journey that has taken many years. The bills are significant in that they seek to re-establish broken relationships and the promise of a better future for all. The Maraeroa A and B Blocks lie on the volcanic plateau east of Te Kūiti. The interests of several iwi and hapū groups intersect here, being predominantly Ngāti Rereahu, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and Ngāti Raukawa.

In September 2008 terms of negotiations were signed with Te Mahu o Rereahu Trust and the Crown, and the Crown commenced exploratory work with Ngāti Rereahu interests in the Maraeroa Blocks. In July 2009 the Crown agreed to negotiate a block settlement with the trust in relation to the Maraeroa A and B Blocks, with the beneficiaries being all descendants of the original owners of those blocks, regardless of iwi or hapū affiliation.

The trust sought a fresh mandate in August 2010 to negotiate on behalf of the descendants of the Maraeroa Blocks. This mandate was recognised on 18 November 2010, and a deed was initialled on 16 December 2010. Five ratification information hui were held in January 2011. The hui were held at Māngere, Te Kūiti, Waihī marae, Pā Harakeke, and Kōkiri marae in Wellington. I am told that the hui were well attended and supported by owners residing in those places. I think this is worthy of acknowledgment—the commitment, the resourcing, and the manaakitanga of our marae and entities who gave so generously to enable the settlement’s process to flow.

The block settlement recognised that the claims settlement bill is outside the settlement framework and does not comprehensively settle all the claims of the claimant groups. All claims, however, relating to the Maraeroa A and B Blocks will be extinguished by this settlement. I acknowledge that this feature in itself—that the settlement relates exclusively to the Maraeroa A and B Blocks—adds another layer to the legislation, in that we must also be aware that there are other negotiations occurring between the parties in respective areas outside of this settlement.

The land on which the people of Maraeroa A and B Blocks settled and exercised kaitiakitanga was rich in resources. It was an area regarded as a kono kai, which provided a wide range of foods and resources for all of the iwi of the surrounding district. The Crown acknowledges that in 1862 native land legislation was imposed on Māori landowners without consulting them, and that the native land laws facilitated Crown and private purchasing of Māori land.

I am reminded of the wisdom of one of my tipuna, Tinirau, who left us the vision of these words: toitū te kupu, toitū te mana, toitū te w’enua. In that message, he urged us all to hold fast to our language, to our land, as the essence of who we are as mana w’enua—the people of the land. It is an intimate and all-enduring relationship—the tangata, the people, always connected to the w’enua, their land. It is a relationship that forms the very foundation of our being, and yet a relationship that has been sorely tested by the actions of the Crown over the past 170 years and more.

In this legislation we saw this manifest from 1884 to 1908, a period of time in which the Crown had a monopoly over purchasing from Maraeroa A and B Blocks. Between 1895 and 1908 the Crown purchased the individual interests of most of the owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks, totalling a massive 90 percent of two blocks. The Maraeroa A and B Blocks contained significant areas of indigenous forest. The prices paid by the Crown for these blocks did not appear to include the value of the indigenous timber on the land, and the milling of indigenous forest removed the habitat of indigenous species.

The alienation of these blocks separated the descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks from their wāhi tapu, undermined their cultural connection to the land, and deprived them of the ability to access ngā wāhi kohinga kai, cultural resources, and materials for construction. The loss of these lands undermined the social and traditional tribal structures of the people, their autonomy, and their ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities. Today this legislation is an attempt to rectify and remedy the wrong.

The Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill is a private bill in my name, required to establish the Māori incorporation that is to form part of the post-Government settlement entity. This bill has also resulted from the deed that was negotiated and agreed between the Crown and the descendants of this w’enua. I am proud to sponsor this bill on behalf of the descendants of the Maraeroa Blocks.

I want to also thank my parliamentary colleagues for supporting the procedural changes necessary to allow both Government and private bills to be considered together as cognate bills through the legislative process. Both bills need to come into force at the same time so that the transfer of the settlement assets to the incorporation can take place.

I hope that this settlement will atone for these wrongs and continue the process of healing. It will mark the beginning of a new relationship with the descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks that is based on mutual trust and cooperation. I consider the bills should, therefore, proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend these bills to the House.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Mr Deputy Speaker, e mihi kau ana ki a koe e noho ana i runga i te tūru rā, e mau awhi mō te pō nei. Kua tae ake tātou ki te whakawhitiwhiti kōrero mō te tīmata o tēnei kerēme mō rātou a Maraeroa. E mihi atu ki a Tariana e tuku i te pire nei ki roto i te Whare Mīere. Me whakahoki atu ōku whakaaro ki wērā tau i tae atu au ki reira ki tō rātou wāhi, i kite atu i te nui o te ngahere, o te harakeke. Nā, te tino rekareka i roto i āku i tae atu ki reira, i kite atu i a rātou e whai kaha ā muri mō nga tuku i waihotia mai e ngā mea pakeke ō rātou. E tika atu me tautoko, me mihi atu ki wēnei kaiwhakahaere, a Piripi Crown me Glen Katu, a Brian Stanley, a Deborah Maxwell, a Tūtahanga Tēpu, a Edward Moana, me Thomas Tūwhāngai, nā te mea, i roto i āku, e mihi kau ana ki a rātou me ngā mea pakeke e kore e ora, rātou i tīmata atu i te take nei.

E whakaaro atu mō te kōrero a Tariana mō rātou, ahakoa e tū atu i muri i te haki o Maraeroa, nā, te nui ō rātou he iwi kē, he iwi kē. Wētahi nō Ngāti Rereahu, wētahi nō Ngāti Maniapoto, nō Ngāti Tūwharetoa, nō Raukawa me wētahi o ngā iwi. Nā, te tino take i roto i āku, he tino wāhi tapu te wāhi nei o Maraeroa. He nui atu ngā mahi o ngā koroua, kuia e mōhio atu te mahi o te ao kōhatu. Nā te pai hoki i tae atu tātou ki reira, i kite atu i a rātou e whai kaha ana mō te mahi ūmanga, te mahi pākihi. Nō reira, mihi atu ki a rātou.

[Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge you sitting there on that Chair and bringing your assistance to this evening’s proceedings. We have reached the point where we start the debate on this claim for those of Maraeroa. I commend the Minister, the Hon Tariana Turia, who presented this bill before the Chamber. I cast my thoughts back to those years past when I arrived at their place and observed how big the forest and flax were. I was really pleased to be there and to witness how hard they had worked afterwards on initiatives left by their older ones. It is fitting that I endorse and salute these negotiators, Piripi Crown and Glen Katu, Brian Stanley, Deborah Maxwell, Tūtahanga Tēpu, Edward Moana, and Thomas Tūwhāngai, because within me I pay a tribute to them and the older ones who are no longer alive, the ones who initiated this matter.

I take into account Tariana’s statement about them, when she stated that even though they stand behind Maraeroa’s flag, many of them are from different tribes. Some are from Ngāti Rereahu, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Raukawa, and so on. The real issue for me is that this Maraeroa is a very sacred place. There are many elderly men and womenfolk who practise and know about rituals from prehistoric times. The good thing, though, was we visited and saw how hard they worked on business and economic initiatives. So I congratulate them.]

As my learned colleague Tariana Turia said earlier on, this settlement is not comprehensive. It settles claims to the Maraeroa A and B Blocks. The beneficiaries, as has already been pointed out, are those who are descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks, and it is interesting that they include members of Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Maniopoto, Rereahu, and Ngāti Raukawa. It is a blend that has learnt to mould together and I think, if you go there today, you can witness the effort that they undertake in relation to their commerciality in making sure that their assets are used for their people. I think they are a great example for other Māori iwi and tribes to follow and look at. That we have coupled these two, the private bill and the Government bill, together will bring expediency, and we will get through the claims that arise largely from the introduction of the operation of the native land laws.

It is fascinating, when you study these whānau, iwi, and hapū, who at some stage have had a principled direction from the Native Land Court, that it all seemed to go askew. What they did have was large tracts of commercial native timber, and a lot of that was milled, but they never saw the financial benefit of that. It is important to understand that they have sort of followed through, if you have a look at their forestry operation. They own the forestry truck companies, they own the forestry groups that export it, and it is really a lesson, an exercise, in how, joined together, you can make best use.

A provision for a partnership, an agreement between the Department of Conservation and the settlement entity in respect of public conservation land and wāhi tapu with Maraeroa A and B, is important in this bill. I think one of the things that I have been taken with in dealing with Maraeroa is that they are quite an elegant people and they really are true environmentalists—the majority of them. I can recall going up there when they were opening their supposed international operation in relation to preservation of the harakeke flax and native plant species to ensure that they did not slide away.

I think it is important to point out that as much as these descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B are identified in this order, it needs to be recognised that they have got through, toiled away, and brought themselves into an order that I think is the envy of a whole lot of other Māori organisations. That is not saying that they were unpronounced in relation to the struggles and the poverty inflicted on them by the Crown’s nonsense of that time.

The claims of the descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks, like I said, relate primarily to the operation of the Native Land Court. Part 1 of this bill sets out the purpose of the legislation, and it is important to understand that they already have a construct, which is in the incorporation and the other part of developing the construction, which will take the settlement assets and proceeds and ensure that they pass on, and that they go to where they should go to. It specifies that the Act binds the Crown, and I think the better part of it is the statutory acknowledgments of the 12 culturally significant sites, the overlay classification of Pureora o Kahu, and two geographic name changes: Mangakōkakotaea Stream and Mangaparuhou Stream. I think it is great. I think a lot of these overburdened, English-named streams need to be changed. So you might be able to do a bit more, Minister.

But look, we join with the Minister launching this into the House, and we are certainly supportive of, and encouraged by, getting Maraeroa and its claims through. Kia ora.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Can I begin by expressing my thanks to the House for approving the debate proceeding in this way, because we are dealing with cognate Government and private bills. The Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill is required so that the incorporation can receive the fruits of the settlement, and so it is just great that we have been able to proceed in this way rather than deal with the public bill, the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill, and leave the private bill for members’ day, which would have been a very untidy way of dealing with this issue.

Like the two previous speakers, I acknowledge the negotiation team from the Te Mahu o Rereahu Trust, who, as Mr Horomia said, represented a really diverse group of iwi. They took a lead in this negotiation, and I acknowledge their practicality and their very hard work, which has made this settlement possible. I particularly refer to Piripi Crown, Brian Stanley, and Glen Katu whose endeavour, skill, and influence have got us to where we are today. I also want to thank everyone who has been involved in, and given their support to, this negotiation over the past couple of years. As Mrs Turia said, it is right and proper to remember those who are no longer with us, and I too want to acknowledge the work of Murdoch Paki, a prominent and respected member of the trust during the negotiations.

Today we address the historic grievances of the descendants of the original owners of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks, so that they and the Crown can move forward together. Developing a new relationship that is based on mutual trust and cooperation is really what these Treaty settlements are about—healing the past and building the future—and I am confident that this settlement too will very successful. I do not intend to repeat the matters that have already been covered by my ministerial colleague Mrs Turia, so what I want to do is say something about the redress components of the settlement.

The settlement is, to use that very overused word, unique in the Treaty settlement framework. The beneficiaries are going to be the descendants of those who once owned the lands rather than being based on iwi affiliation, and, as Mr Horomia said, there are a number of members of various iwi who are involved in this settlement. The cultural redress will reaffirm the relationships of the iwi with sites of significance within the Maraeroa Blocks. The commercial redress elements of the settlement will help provide a platform for economic development.

In particular, I want to highlight a number of key features of the settlement. First, there is the option to purchase 286 hectares of the Pureora north Crown forest licensed land, and then what goes with that: the accumulated rentals and New Zealand units, and a right of first refusal over the Crown land at Pureora Village for a period of 50 years. Approximately 1,793 hectares across six Crown sites will be vested, with four of the sites subject to a conservation covenant, and $40,000 will be provided to explore the vesting of the Ngā Herenga Pā site, which is a site of great significance for the descendants, being the place where Rereahu died. There are a number of other changes and name changes included in this settlement, and 12 statutory acknowledgments over culturally significant sites, including the commencement of the Waipā River, the co-governance of which was dealt with a few minutes ago in Committee in the context of the Ngāti Maniapoto legislation, and there are a number of other sites as well.

As part of these post-governance arrangements, representatives of the iwi bodies will be provided for on the trust entity. These arrangements reflect the—as I said—unique nature of the block settlement, where the beneficiaries are descendants of the former owners of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks, rather than based on iwi affiliation.

So my thanks go to members of the trust and the negotiating team for their patience while we have waited to get to this parliamentary stage. I very much look forward to both these bills being considered as quickly as possible by the Māori Affairs Committee, under the energetic and professional chairmanship of the newly wed Tau Henare, and I look forward to those bills coming back to the House as quickly as possible so that we can have the settlement enacted.

Just to pick up on a point that I think one of the Green members may have made earlier, we had a bit of a sermon on how the Government rushes these matters through. Well, we are anxious that iwi and trusts receive the fruits of their settlement. This deed was signed by Mrs Turia on behalf of the Crown about a year ago. They are anxious that it proceed; we are anxious that it proceed. It is not a question of rushing things through because of some timetable, but in order to deliver justice as quickly as possible to these people. And, to quote the old adage, justice delayed is justice denied. So I am very pleased to support this legislation as it now embarks on the select committee consideration.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a call on this legislation and to again affirm the Green Party’s support for the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill. We also offer our respects and our regards to the leadership of the people who will benefit from this settlement, and, indeed, we acknowledge the work and the commitment of the Minister who presented these two bills to the House. These bills, these settlements, of course, are both necessary and desirable to make good injustices that have occurred over many generations, to make good breaches of the Treaty that occurred over time, and to make some restitution both in terms of acknowledging mana of people and in terms of more practical restitution in the way of land, money, resource—whatever it might be.

I am often reminded of a commentary made by Mr David Williams some years ago. Acknowledging, himself, that he was speaking in 20/20 hindsight, he reflected that perhaps it would have been better for New Zealanders if, before launching into the Treaty settlement process some 25 or 30-odd years ago, we had, in advance of that, gone through something along the lines of a truth and reconciliation process. David himself, of course, was an early tribunal member. He was not being critical, in a sense; he was speaking with hindsight. I think, had we created a situation where more people understand the nature of the Treaty, the nature of the relationship it established, and the importance of that relationship in contemporary New Zealand, then we might have got a swift resolution, or a swifter resolution, which is, indeed, in everybody’s interests, notwithstanding some of the commentary of the previous speaker.

Te Tiriti is undoubtedly the underpinning of our constitutional arrangements. It has enormous unifying potential, but that potential is compromised to some extent until we eventually resolve at least all of the historical grievances, acknowledging again that there will continue to be moments where the Treaty relationship becomes strained. We will never be in a situation where we can put the Treaty aside and consider it a historical entity; it is a living document, and we have great regard and respect for it for that reason.

These particular two bills we are looking at, dare I say it, present what genuinely appears to be an elegant solution—perhaps an overused phrase of late. But nevertheless it does seem that the establishment of the incorporation in the nature of the settlement does acknowledge and give some respect to the fact that the evidence is, the history tells us, that there has for a long time been a shared usage of this land. As we know, Ngāti Rereahu, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Raukawa, and others all have legitimate claims—overlapping cross-claims, perhaps—and the notion of creating this new entity, this new incorporation, with representation from all of those iwi is an excellent solution, we believe.

I think it is generally well known that pre-European Māori did not have the same concept of ownership—the notion of individual ownership of land—that was common in Western thought and Western practice. People clearly, as tangata whenua, literally felt that they belonged to the land, rather than the land belonging to them. But nevertheless, Māori in pre-European times had a very sophisticated, well-developed, and, I believe, very effective system of user rights—not ownership rights, but user rights. I think some of that principle, if you like, is perhaps carrying over into the bill and into the construct of this incorporation and the chosen solution for this particular area of land. The idea is that in a given season, particularly in a subsistence economy, it makes a great deal of sense for a particular group with mana whenua rights to share the resource with others in reciprocal arrangements—to share resources at the coast, in the bush, or whatever it might be. I think this is an example where we actually have a great deal to learn in contemporary New Zealand about some of the principle and practice that underpinned Māori society in pre-European times. As I say, it is nice to see a reflection of that notion of reciprocity, of shared rights, and, indeed, of shared responsibility coming through in the structure of this incorporation and in the settlement arrangements that have been made about this.

I think that is all I need say at this point. We started out by offering our respects and regards to the beneficiaries and acknowledging their work over many generations to reach this point, and we look forward to a resolution finally. Kia ora.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will put the questions. If members wish to give some attention to the Order Paper, they will see this has been a cognate debate—

Brendan Horan: Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Brendan Horan, are you seeking the call? You are seeking a call to speak? I have started to put the question, but if the member is seeking the call—

Brendan Horan: Yes, I am seeking the call.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Brendan Horan.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in the first readings of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill, and I would like to acknowledge the people who are here tonight. I would like to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Rereahu, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Raukawa, and others who may be listening to or watching this debate on our bills. I say “our bills” because I am of Ngāti Maniapoto descent. This legislation is to address the longstanding historical grievances of the affected iwi and hapū, and it therefore has several layers of importance to me.

I am pleased to stand in this debate on behalf of New Zealand First to support many of the sentiments previously conveyed. It is reassuring to the iwi and hapū affected by the settlement that after many years of consultation we are now remedying these historical injustices. That is what this legislation is about: restoring justice, and closure. It is about righting historical wrongs so that together we can all move forward as a country.

The grievances set to be rectified by this settlement stem from nearly 150 years ago. Initially the iwi were employed in the clearing of the land, the felling of the mighty tōtara and kauri. But it is interesting that eventually the sawmill industry collapsed, and one of the main drivers of this industry was pulp and paper. Sadly, there has not been a new machine installed since the 1970s. The sustained collapse of the sawmill industry forced the continued migration of a large number of hapū to the cities in order to find work to support their families. This settlement sets out to restore rights for these disaffected iwi, to reconnect with their wāhi tapu, and to restore what is owed to them financially, spiritually, and culturally.

Traditionally, Maraeroa A and B Blocks were considered a kono kai—a food basket—but also a healing centre for gathering harakeke, as the honourable member from Labour mentioned earlier. Harakeke is one of the great healing plants of Māori. So this area was held in common by these iwi, conveying a bond of mutual understanding and benefit. With this settlement set to be approved, we hope that these resources will enable those members in the urban diaspora communities to once again reconnect with the region and recognise it as being an important part of their cultural and spiritual tūrangawaewae.

He kura whenua tiakina, māna koe e ora ai ā-tinana, ā-wairua. The land is precious: nurture it and in good time it will nurture you physically and spiritually. In conclusion, I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for the first reading of this legislation. Kia ora.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will now put the question, if no other member is seeking the call. As I was saying earlier, this is a cognate debate. There are two bills—one in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson and one in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia—so there are two lots of questions. Just so that people understand the process from this point on.

Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to rise for the dinner adjournment so that we can start the next Government order of the day more tidily.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for an early dinner adjournment. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill

Procedure

LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the first speaker from each party to speak on the cognate bills for up to 15 minutes with a warning bell at 10.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

First Readings

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for Whānau Ora) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time.

E ngā uri o Tuperiri, e ngā kanohi maha o Tāōū, o Ngāoho, o Te Uringutu, e Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei whānui, nau mai ki roto o Pāremata. Ki a koutou ngā w’aka’eke o Makinui rāua ko Rotu nō raro i te maru o Tamahunga, nō ngā pari o Te Moana-o-Toi, Ngāti Manuhiri, hau mai, hau mai, hau mai rā. E aku rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou.

[To you, the relatives of Tuperiri and the many faces of Tāōū, Ngāoho, and Te Uringutu, as well as the vast number of you, Ngāti Whātua of Ōrākei, welcome to Parliament. To the descendants of Makinui and Rotu from beneath the shelter of Tamahunga and the cliffs of the Ocean of Toi, Ngāti Manuhiri, enter, enter, and enter indeed. Acknowledgments to you, my leaders of a hundredfold.]

At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bills be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. Firstly, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the representatives of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Ngāti Manuhiri who are here today for this highly significant occasion. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. This is an important day for Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, when we acknowledge their historical Treaty grievances. It is a time to grieve and reflect, to acknowledge the harm done and the hurt endured, and to take a step forward to create a new future that is branded with optimism.

The two bills having their first readings here today are a monumental step towards the completion of a journey that has taken many years for both iwi. They are about mending a broken relationship and agreeing to a better future for all. One of the unique features of the Ngāti Whātua deed of settlement is that its historical account begins with the two texts of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. It was actually at the specific request of the late Sir Hugh Kāwharu and was part of the 2006 agreement in principle. It is a very important statement of the reverence that Ngāti Whātua have always accorded the Treaty. The imprint of the late Sir Hugh Kāwharu is marked for ever as we remember the substantial contribution he made towards guiding the nation towards a reasoned discussion on past injustices and hopes for the future.

It used to be said of the Treaty that while Māori never forgot, non-Māori never knew. The settlements we introduce today provide us all with a new opportunity to re-examine our colonial history and to move onwards with mutual respect and understanding. Although it is not possible to provide full restitution to Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei for their losses, the settlement redress provided for in these bills seeks to recognise the seriousness of their grievances and build a positive foundation for future generations of their iwi. It is impossible to do justice to the journey that has been travelled by Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in the limited time constraints of the debate. Whether through a historical, cultural, or geographic lens, the extent of both settlements is immense.

Ngāti Manuhiri are based in the Mahurangi region on the east coast to the north of Auckland. Ngāti Manuhiri were represented in negotiations by the Manuhiri Ōmaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust and are part of the Te Kawerau people through their descent from their ancestor Maki. They are also closely affiliated to Ngāti Wai of Whangarei and are also represented on the Ngāti Wai Trust Board, the iwi of the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

The Ngāti Manuhiri rohe extends from Whangaparāoa Peninsula in the south to Bream Tail in the north and includes Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier Island, off the east coast. The Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill recognises their historical grievances and provides for their resolution. These grievances relate to the 1841 Crown purchase of the large Mahurangi and Ōmaha Block without the knowledge or consent of Ngāti Manuhiri, to the punishment of their chief by pressuring him to cede his ancestral interests in his lands to the operation of the Native Land Court from 1865, to the Crown’s misuse of monopoly powers when purchasing Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier Island, and to the subsequent eviction of those Ngāti Manuhiri who were resident there and the Crown’s failure to ensure that they retained sufficient means, such that they were rendered virtually landless by 1900. This had a long-term social and economic consequence for Ngāti Manuhiri.

They lodged their first claim with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1989. Other claims were then lodged, particularly in regard to the Crown’s acquisition at Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier Island. In 2001 Ngāti Manuhiri participated in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Kaipara inquiry over the Crown’s purchase of the Mangawhai Block. Eight years later in 2009 they entered into negotiations with the Crown as part of the Crown’s settlement initiative in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ngāti Manuhiri and the Crown then signed a deed of settlement on 21 May 2011.

I turn now to the settlement for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, represented in negotiations by Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Māori Trust Board. They are part of the wider Ngāti Whātua confederation and are based at Tāmaki-makau-rau, or Auckland. Their marae of Ōrākei stands overlooking the Waitematā Harbour. They are also a member of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau, whose collective negotiations are nearing completion. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei are also represented with other groups on Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua. The primary area of interest, or rohe, of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei extends through the Tāmaki isthmus on the North Shore and into the upper Waitematā Harbour and west Auckland.

Their bill recognises and addresses their historical grievances, which include the alienation of lands in the centre of Auckland and the North Shore through Crown purchases without the provision of an adequate endowment of land for the future use of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei; the Crown’s failure to protect pā and urupā sites from those transactions, including One Tree Hill, Maungakiekie; the Crown’s failure to implement protective guarantees for Māori during the pre-emption waiver period of 1844 to 1845, which involved a significant amount of Ngāti Whātua lands; and the Crown’s taking of surplus lands from disallowed pre-emption waiver purchases.

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei often describe themselves as a loyal iwi. After they signed the Treaty of Waitangi on 20 March 1840 their chiefs worked hard to build and strengthen their relationship with the Crown. They welcomed Governor Hobson to Tāmaki-makau-rau and made land available for the new capital of Auckland. Yet despite the overwhelming expression of manaakitanga, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei were rendered virtually landless in the two decades that followed the signing of the Treaty. In this the Crown failed them.

The road to settlement has been a long one. Few here today will ever forget the impact of the occupation of Takaparawhau. Ngāti Whātua led the nationally significant occupation and protest at Bastion Point for 506 days between 1977 and 1978. Their claim over the alienation of the 700-acre Ōrākei Block reserve was one of the first of the historical claims to be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal. It was reported on in 1987, and the 1991 Orakei Act settled it. Then in 1993 Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei reached an on-account settlement with the Crown regarding their claims in respect of surplus railway lands in the Auckland region.

Further negotiations with the Crown took place between 2003 and 2006 when an agreement in principle was signed. Negotiations were then suspended in light of the Waitangi Tribunal’s 2007 Tāmaki-makau-rau settlement process report. As a result of that report and the impressive leadership of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, a new approach was taken to negotiation in the region. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei signed a deed of settlement with the Crown on 5 November 2011.

Both bills will give effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and the Ngāti Manuhiri deeds of settlement. I consider that the bills should therefore proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend these bills to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I te tuatahi, me tuku i roto i tō tātou reo Māori he mihi ki ngā huānga mai i ngā iwi kua tatū ki Te Upoko-o-te-Ika, kua uru mai ki roto i te Ana o te Raiona. Nā reira, e ōku mātua, e ngā tuāhine, e ngā whaea koutou katoa kua tatū mai nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[First of all, an acknowledgment in our Māori language to relatives in the tribes that have arrived here in Wellington, into the “lions’ den”. So salutations to all of you, my parents, sisters, and aunties, I acknowledge you all.]

We naturally have no hesitation in supporting the work of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the negotiators in this very protracted claim—firstly, the Ngāti Whātua. Secondly, a number of us know of the history of the tupuna Rāhui Te Kī and Ngāti Manuhiri—otherwise claimed by Ngāti Wai, but that is another matter—occasionally led by that great kauri tree Laly Haddon, who, when he is in a good mood, is a very friendly individual. So I must acknowledge the people of what we called, when I was a lad at St Stephen’s School, Takaparawhau—the people who were up at what was popularly referred to in Auckland as Bastion Point. In that time, along with my grandmother, boys from St Stephen’s School were welcomed by a kuia called Nanny Hopi on to that marae, which saw a great deal of anguish and, indeed, saw blood. But today we gather here as proxies for the New Zealand public and offer our support to the Minister and those who have worked with him to bring the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Settlement Bill to a stage where, if there are further matters to be considered, then we can rely upon the processes of the legislature—figuratively speaking, the highest court in the land.

When you struggle with how the identity of the original inhabitants ought to be embedded into civic life, commercial life, or indeed the community life of our largest city, it is not often understood by the civic leaders and community leaders, and it is certainly not understood by commercial leaders, that the tangata whenua, the Māori occupying the wider Tāmaki-makau-rau area, are not a monolithic group. But beyond doubt the people who comprise the populations of the three hapū, Te Taou, Ngā Oho, and Te Uringatu, are the descendants of Apihai Te Kawau and others, the tūpuna who were at Waitematā when the Pākehā originally arrived with the designs of colonisation. Te Taou has a special connection for me from Muriwhenua because it is a name that originated in the extreme far north around the Kurahaupō waka area.

So our focus is not on the finicky detail. We know that there is a source of tension in some of the properties being offered back by dint of this legislation, but let us say in this House that this is a Treaty settlement between the Crown and the leaders of the hapū or iwi, and there is always scope for dealing with community concerns and community issues as the settlement is fully implemented. If anyone knows about that it is us on the Māori side of the House, but on these issues there ought not to be a Māori side or a Pākehā side. We actually want to see these issues dealt with expeditiously and to see people get on with their lives, go home, and expend energy on doing what is far more challenging—making $15 million, $18 million, or $20 million and making the land into something that is a lot larger and turning it into a legacy for uri whakatupu, future generations.

A number of us also remember the railways settlements, when I talk about Ngāti Whātua, and the original Waitangi Tribunal claim hearings in the time when Mōnita Delamere, Bishop Bennett, Ned Nathan, Mira Szaszy, and others played a key role working with either the tribunal or members of the tribunal. So I want to mention the name of that particular individual, Mr Ned Nathan. Not only was he a fearless warrior of the Māori Batallion but he was a stalwart for the people of the north, and I recall him taking a group of us to the marae at Ngāti Whātua and those areas when the Waitangi Tribunal in those rather lonely days was dealing with those issues, and indeed Koro Wētere was the Minister. So these people have waited a long time.

Just to reiterate what Tariana Turia said about Ngāti Manuhiri, they are near an area known as Ōmaha, unfortunately more popular these days because the Prime Minister has got a bach there, twice the size of Hone Harawira’s house, but that is another matter. It is always difficult when you are leading a hapū in an area where your land has basically been stripped from you, and you get the fringe development around the coast, because the coast is so beautiful, and there is always a balance as to how you establish and maintain a Māori presence there when the land is so expensive, the rates are so demanding, and your neighbours are people who by dint of either good luck or other designs have amassed wealth and they choose to spend that wealth and create considerable homes up there. So we commend this legislation and we offer our mihi and affection to the people who arrived here to see it move forward, and we offer our support to the Minister. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I want to thank the previous speaker, Shane Jones, for his very generous comments. I really must say that in this exercise I really do appreciate talking both to Shane Jones and to Parekura Horomia. They are great people to discuss these issues with because they are bipartisan issues; they are important issues that the Parliament has to get right.

I want to welcome those members of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Ngāti Manuhiri who have travelled to Parliament for this debate. You may wonder why I was not in the Chamber when Mrs Turia was speaking. It is because I am responsible for the legislation, and if I was here things would go wrong, so I wanted Mrs Turia to speak. I had to go out and sit in the lobby, but I promise you I listened, as I always do, to every word she said.

Iwi leaders have to make difficult trade-offs, and so I really do appreciate your being here today and I salute your courage and your personal commitment to these settlements. I really want to acknowledge the negotiation teams of both Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, who, with their dedication, their pragmatism, and hard work have made these settlements possible. I join with Mrs Turia and Mr Jones in paying tribute to the efforts and struggles of past generations of Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, who have sought justice from the Crown and who have contributed to these settlements contained within these bills.

For Ngāti Manuhiri I acknowledge the presence here tonight of Laly Haddon, who has pursued the grievances of Ngāti Manuhiri against the Crown for over 20 years. It is largely as a result of his leadership that Ngāti Manuhiri have reached this settlement. I also pay tribute to Mook Hohneck, whose pragmatic and positive engagement with the Crown contributed to what has been, as matters go, a very speedy negotiation from the time we signed the agreement in principle shortly before Christmas at what I think is now called the Pullman. We managed to have a very rushed meeting and sign that agreement in principle before I think I headed off overseas.

Sadly, Sir Hugh Kāwharu of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei is no longer with us. He was a great New Zealander. He was a scholar and negotiator of very high calibre, who led Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei negotiations with the Crown until his death in 2006. From then Grant Hawke has ably taken the helm and, in addition to Mr Hawke’s leadership, I acknowledge Puawai Rāmeka, Tīwana Tibble, Graeme Horsley, Don Wackrow—you always have to mention the lawyer—and David Williams. Together they formed a formidable and highly professional negotiations team. I have to tell you now that there were a number of occasions when the Minister of Finance told me to toughen up and deal with them more firmly. Can I acknowledge the role of Sir Douglas Graham. His wisdom and foresight in developing a proposal that laid the foundation for negotiations in the wider Tāmaki region has been absolutely critical to the success of both these settlements.

Today we address the historical grievances of these iwi, so that we can all move forward together and develop new relationships based on mutual trust and cooperation. I think that both settlements are going to pave the way for these future relationships, and I am very positive about them.

I do not wish to repeat the matters that Mrs Turia covered in her speech, so I want to say something mainly about the redress components of these settlements. First, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. In November last year, at a ceremony at Ōkahu Bay, the people of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei signed a deed of settlement with the Crown, and the bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the Ōrākei deed of settlement. It sets out the cultural and historical redress, including Crown acknowledgments, the apology, the historical account, a statutory acknowledgment over Crown land held for defence purposes at Kauri Point, and Crown land vested for control and management in the Auckland Council at Kauri Point on the North Shore. It contains protocols issued by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister for Economic Development, and a letter of recognition from the Minister of Primary Industries regarding participation in, and input into, the fisheries planning processes, and for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to become an advisory committee in relation to fishery resources within their primary area of interest.

The settlement includes commercial redress comprising a quantum of $18 million, plus interest, less an on-account payment for $2 million received—as Mr Jones said—through the railways settlement in 1993. There is the purchase from the New Zealand Defence Force of the Whakakura block. There is the purchase and lease-back to the New Zealand Defence Force of 5 years of five housing blocks—Beresford, Birchfield, Hillary, Marsden, and Plymouth. Redress for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei over the volcanic cones on the isthmus and islands in the gulf will be provided through the Tāmaki collective settlement, which, as Mrs Turia said, is getting very close to being finalised.

The Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill will give effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the Ngāti Manuhiri deed of settlement, signed at their marae on a beautiful day, 21 May 2011. The settlement includes cultural and historical redress. There are the Crown acknowledgments, the apology, and an account. There is the vesting and gifting back, minus 1.2 hectares, of Te Hauturu-o-Toi, which is a nature reserve and place of enormous significance to Ngāti Manuhiri. There is the co-approval by Ngāti Manuhiri trustees together with the conservation board of a management plan for the island. There are the provisions for the trustees of the Ngāti Manuhiri post-settlement governance entity and the Department of Conservation to approve the removal of stones from the island for cultural purposes, and to Ngā Whenua Rāhui providing for enhanced input into management of specific Department of Conservation - held sites.

The commercial redress includes a financial redress to the value of $9 million, plus interest, less an on-account payment of $350,000 paid on 22 December 2011; purchase of the Warkworth District Court and Pakiri School, which will be leased back to the Crown; and the transfer of South Mangawhai Crown forest licensed land, which is subject to the current forest licence and accumulated rentals.

So the introduction of these bills signals the final stage of the work these great people have done in relation to their iwi. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei have campaigned for justice for a very, very long time, and living as they do in the heart of Auckland have had their settlement under considerable public scrutiny, which will continue, and we can deal with that. Ngāti Manuhiri have been less in the public gaze, but when the opportunity for negotiation arose were very quick to seek a resolution of their equally longstanding grievances. Both iwi have waited a long time for this day, and I believe should be very proud of what they have achieved. So with those words I salute these iwi, their leaders, and their negotiators, and hope that the bill will receive a very rapid process through the Māori Affairs Committee, which, as I said in an earlier debate, I am sure it will, because of the outstanding chairmanship and leadership provided by the newly wed Mr Tau Henare.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rangatira mā, ngā uri o Ngāti Whātua me Ngāti Manuhiri, tenā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the powers, languages, leaders, and descendants of Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Manuhiri, greetings, greetings, and greetings to us all.]

It is my pleasure to stand as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and as the member of Parliament for Manurewa in this first reading of the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge Jo and Grant and the whānau who have travelled here tonight to share in this process of reconciliation, which I think is a very important process, as our country moves forward.

I would firstly like to focus on the whānau from Ngāti Manuhiri, and I want to talk a bit about the whakapapa. Ngāti Manuhiri are the descendents of the tupuna Manuhiri, the eldest son of Maki, and as such are affiliated to the broader Te Kawerau confederation. I want to acknowledge that Ngāti Manuhiri also has close whakapapa connections with Ngāti Wai, and it is through these connections that Ngāti Manuhiri have been represented on the Ngāti Wai Trust Board for the last 70 years. So today the Ngāti Manuhiri community affiliates to Ōmaha Marae at Pakiri.

The first Ngāti Manuhiri claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 122, was lodged by Laly Paraone Haddon and Hawe Brown on 24 October 1989. It was subsequently withdrawn. Four further claims, Wai 244, Wai 532, Wai 1539, and Wai 1811, were lodged by members of Ngāti Manuhiri regarding historical grievances relating to Ngāti Manuhiri generally, and three additional claims, Wai 280, Wai 487, and Wai 567, were lodged that relate specifically to the alienation of Hauturu—Little Barrier Island. This settlement addresses all those Wai claims.

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement entered into by the Crown and Ngāti Manuhiri on 21 May 2011 for the final settlement of the historical claims of Ngāti Manuhiri. These interests will be governed by the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust.

I had a look on the web and was very interested to note that on 1 December 2011 a man by the name of Laly Haddon was returned as a trustee, so I want to congratulate him on being returned as a trustee. Obviously you were there at the beginning, you are there now, and you will be there into the future as the fruition of this settlement happens.

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei are a collective group composed of individuals who descend from the ancestor Tuperiri, and are members of one or more hapū of Ngā Oho, Te Uringatu, and Te Taou—apologies for my pronunciation, my Tūwharetoa in Waikato pronunciation. They exercised customary rights, predominantly in relation to the primary area of interest of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

There was an agreement in principle in 2006, and I want to acknowledge that for 6 long years the mana whenua, the iwi of Tāmaki-makau-rau, have worked together. So, yes, there has been a collaboration between the Crown and Māori, but actually there has been a greater collaboration between the mana whenua groups across Tāmaki-makau-rau, and I want to acknowledge the work that we have done as a people to move this process forward. It has taken 6 long years of collaboration, but this is the beginning of that collective process, so I want to acknowledge all the work, all the blood, sweat, and tears, that I know has gone into creating the settlement that is before us today.

In conclusion, this is the second series of Treaty settlement bills that have been before the House this year, and, as you can see, it is an area where we have cross-party support. It is not bipartisan; actually, it is all of this House, all members of Parliament, and all parties within Aotearoa who want to see the resolution of historical Treaty grievances. It is an acknowledgment that our tangata whenua, our indigenous peoples, have been adversely affected by colonisation. So this is all of the House working together to make sure that we give resources back to iwi groups, so that, as Shane said, you can move forward and start focusing on the future and on how we can create legacies for our children.

I do want to highlight words spoken by the Hon Christopher Finlayson, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, on 16 February 2012 during the first reading of the first series of Treaty settlement bills. He said: “iwi have offered to forgo full compensation in order to contribute to the future development of New Zealand,”. He also thanked them—thanked you—for your generosity in reaching settlement. We can never give you back what was taken, but what we want to do is give you back land, some resources, hopefully, some contracts, and, hopefully, what you need to grow a base to support your members.

What I do want to say is that in that process of generosity that iwi have exhibited, I hope that ethic of generosity extends to all New Zealanders, and that we do not have any issues from other groups wanting to contest the settlements that you have reached.

I look forward to my participation in this Treaty process as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and I thank you very much for making the effort to come down to Wellington, out of your rohe, and I wish you safe travels. Kia kaha, kia toa, kia manawanui. Kia ora.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Green Party to these two bills, the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill. Tēnā koutou katoa. It is very nice to have the claimants here in the Chamber with us for this first reading, and, no doubt, I am looking forward to speaking with them in more detail during the Māori Affairs Committee consideration, when we will hear more of the stories of the history of the claims and the hard work of those who have been working to bring them to this point.

Addressing firstly the Ngāti Whātua claim, the Green Party will be supporting this legislation. I have spent quite a lot of time meeting with Ngāti Whātua over these issues and other ones that pertain to them—for example, over Auckland governance and some of the other difficulties that iwi Māori in the Tāmaki-makau-rau region have been suffering over recent years. I know that a huge amount of work has gone into this settlement. My colleague Dave Clendon will speak later on the detail of the Ngāti Whātua claim, but we are very pleased to be able to support this claim.

The principles behind how the Green Party approaches Treaty settlements are that we believe that the Crown and its representatives have breached, and continue to breach, including within the settlement process, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We agree that there must be resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches as they occur. We believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi supports hapūtanga, and that hapūtanga is undermined by the Treaty settlement process and its focus on large natural groupings, which tends to undermine the particular claims or the particular issues suffered by hapū over the period of colonisation as it occurs. We also believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a positive force for social cohesion and peace in this country, and despite the occasional strange article by people with opinions and not much knowledge, the fact is that the Treaty has, in many ways, brought Aotearoa together. Whether it has been from whānau to whānau, whether it is in the retention of land and forestry in New Zealand lands, the Treaty has been a force for good in this country, and can continue to be so.

But the full capacity of te Tiriti to be used as this force for social good, for social cohesion, and to bring our communities and whānau together cannot be reached until there is genuine restitution for the wrongs that were committed by the State against hapū. That requires the restitution of rangatiratanga, it requires the restoration of decision making, and it requires respect for the process by which iwi and hapū organise themselves, and make decisions themselves. The difficulty we have with the Treaty settlement process, and have always had with it, is that it is not designed by Māori or for Māori. It is not designed according to the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū. It is designed according to the needs of the Crown to find a cheap way and quick way of addressing issues that the broader constituency might want addressed, but which still, in the process, causes further harm. The large natural groupings policy is one of those ways that continual harm is done to iwi and hapū.

The “picking winners” process that the settlement essentially creates is another way in which harm continues to be caused against iwi and hapū, and continual breaches are made, because iwi and hapū with legitimate claims and real concerns, and who have been injured by the actions of the State, are left out of the process because the process is not designed to meet their needs.

The Greens in the past have tended to support Treaty settlements, because we know that often many decades of work have gone into bringing them to this point of legislation, and we know how many hours have gone into managing the claims process, how much work is involved in working with the communities, and how much effort has gone into working with the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to try to get some reasonably just process and restitution, although that is very rare to see. And we know that lives are lost in the process, from when the first claims are made, to the Waitangi Tribunal hearings, to the ignoring of those reports by the Crown, to the negotiations that often trap iwi into fait accompli deals that they simply, under duress of poverty, have no choice but to accept. That is how the majority of Treaty settlement claims are dealt with by the State.

We have to take this very seriously. This is not about rubber-stamping, this process, because it is not a just process, and it does not provide just restitution. So the Green Party takes very seriously that we are decision makers over the supposed full and final settlements. We do not believe they are full and final; we think they are deals done today, according to today’s constraints, and that the issues will be revisited.

That does bring me to the Ngāti Manuhiri claim. On this settlement the Green Party has agreed to abstain in the first reading, which for us is a big step, because we have generally supported all claims. But we are abstaining today on this claim because we think that the issues that have excluded Ngāti Wai from the proper process around their claim over Te Hauturu-o-Toi are so serious—are so serious, by the Crown—that we are simply not prepared to support it at this stage and say that it is OK. We do not think that this settlement bill is OK, so we will be abstaining on our vote for it, and we look forward to hearing from the claimants from Ngāti Manuhiri and from Ngāti Wai, and from all of those others who were involved at the select committee, so that we get a fuller picture of what is going on for all these hapū, all these iwi in this claim.

To that extent it is important, then, to put on the record, as we have earlier today, the issues around Te Hauturu-o-Toi, particularly for Ngāti Wai, because they are the ones who are not being represented in this Chamber in this debate. Ngāti Wai, as I understand, claim Hauturu as a significant taonga for them. They were also resident on Hauturu, and they were also forcibly evicted from that island. My understanding is that the Ngāti Wai Trust Board does not support the inclusion of Hauturu in this settlement, or at least it is in dispute, because the whole Ngāti Wai claim needs to be dealt with, rather than just this one part.

The deed of settlement we are discussing today offers three major parts to the redress of Hauturu, which I think is worthwhile noting because it is reasonably odd. Hauturu is to be returned to Ngāti Manuhiri for 7 days in fee simple title—for 7 days—and then it is to be returned into Crown ownership and Crown management but for a small portion of 1.2 hectares set aside for ongoing lease by Ngāti Manuhiri. There is then the next stage of co-governance, if you like, over the environmental and other issues around the island between Ngāti Manuhiri and the Crown. I think this raises real concerns. The Crown is saying to Ngāti Wai that it can deal with Ngāti Wai’s need for redress over Hauturu at a later stage. It does ask the question of whether we will see more often that land is given back and then taken away again, perhaps to be used to give to somebody else at some later stage and then taken away again, perhaps given to another iwi and taken away again. It is very hard to have any confidence that this process is just for the people who have been stripped of this land, who have lost this land through theft and unlawful actions by the State, and that there is any real, just process if this is the kind of restitution or redress that is being sought.

I can see that the Minister has got a grumpy look on his face and he disagrees with me. That is not unexpected, and there will no doubt be some more of that. The Green Party takes this seriously. If we are to now endorse a settlement that takes away the rights of some iwi and hapū and that returns only a very small portion of what was lost to others, then we simply cannot rubber-stamp it. There has to be a real consideration of the issues. Not for one minute do we disrespect the process for the iwi and the hapū, but we do take this very seriously. We look forward to hearing from all of those involved during the select committee process. Thank you.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and, like the members before me, warmly welcome representatives of all iwi represented here tonight. Each of you represents the many thousands who cannot be here but would be if they could be—and here you are not alone. Ka mihi e ngā iwi kei konei i tēnei pō. Ka mihi ki ngā tini aituā kei a tātou whanaunga mā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[I acknowledge you, the tribes who are here this evening, and the many deaths that are upon us all, relatives. Acknowledgments to you collectively, and to us all, greetings.]

New Zealand First acknowledges the arduous journey that iwi have taken to reach this point that has finally brought us together. New Zealand First supports the settlement of injustice and grievance. I would like to express our concern, however, at the hastiness of this latter part of the process. Dumping bills together and rushing them through in the dead of night is not the pathway to illumination. The settlement of these historic grievances is far too important and needs to be open and transparent.

To Ngāti Manuhiri, New Zealand First’s sentiments, unlike the Greens’, echo those of the honourable member for Labour Shane Jones. And the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters, who is Ngāti Wai, also supports your claim. Nō mua ka kite a muri. The things behind us enable us to see the things in front of us. In darkness there is confusion, and the last thing we want to be party to is swapping one grievance with another because of some New Zealanders simply being unaware of what has truly gone on. The real enemy is ignorance.

With that in mind I draw your attention to Part 3 of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill and clauses 54 and 55. There is an interesting conundrum. How do we balance community and commerce? Our support for this bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee is robust, because select committees are the place where the diverse opinions are expressed. This land in clauses 54 and 55, given its reserve status, ought not be trivialised. However, of equal importance are the historic claims of indigenous people, who ought not be marginalised—and there lies the conundrum.

It is not for me to say so early whether the weight of historic grievance should overwhelm the efforts and attachment that the local community has for that particular public space; that is the purpose of the select committee. But with passions on both sides, it highlights the need for honest, open, and accountable discussion. To transfer hurt and mistrust from one group to another is a rob Peter to pay Paul scenario that we must never countenance. Recent history shows us that when this Government rushes through bills there is usually a harmful side effect, and any mistakes or inattention to detail at this stage would be devastating.

No matter how big or how small the compensative settlement is, we must set aside the time for the public to view the facts in the bright light of day and allow New Zealanders time to travel to this venue to participate in the process. New Zealand First asks that the second and third readings be in daylight hours, with extensive notice, so that all interested New Zealanders can share the significance and the knowledge, restore spiritual dignity to the process, and embrace the healing, to celebrate what should be momentous occasions for all Māori and all non-Māori—tātou tātou, us and us, all New Zealanders. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a call on these two cognate bills, the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill, and could I say in passing that the Greens, in fact, do support this process, with all due respect to the previous speaker, Brendan Horan. We are part of the all-party agreement that this was an appropriate process. The intention of the process is to have the bills go through more quickly. The third readings, of course, will always be separate, to ensure that the iwi and hapū affected have their moment solely for themselves. We do absolutely support this process. As I say, with all due respect to the previous speaker, we think it is a good process. There is a great deal of legislation. People have waited a long time for these bills. It is time that we have them go through the process as quickly and as smoothly as we can. I certainly add to others’ greetings to the people of Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei who have come to this House to witness this step forward.

I will confine my comments to the Ngāti Whātua settlement. As an Aucklander for most of my life, indeed—we all know that it is New Zealand’s finest city, of course—I know that the city exists only due to the generosity and significant hospitality shown to the early settlers by Ngāti Whātua with the gifting of land and the sharing of resources. I think that is a debt we need to acknowledge as we go forward. Clearly, the generosity and the hospitality were not reciprocated entirely, and that has led to the situation we are in today where we endeavour to make good, to make some restitution for the very shabby treatment that Ngāti Whātua endured over many years. Perhaps the low point of the relationship between Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and the Crown—the Government—in modern terms, at least, was in the 1950s when their homes, their whare, were destroyed and burnt, when their tauranga waka and their fishing grounds were compromised by sewerage pipes and the like. I think it is to the great credit of Ngāti Whātua that for the last 30 or so years there has been reassertion of their mana, of their right to be there, and of their right to be involved in the ongoing future of Auckland.

Auckland is often called the City of Sails. That is a great slogan, a great brand, but equally it is a city of maunga—Maungawhau, Maungakiekie, and Puketāpapa. These are the icons of Auckland, and, clearly, we are grateful, I think, and ought to be grateful, to Ngāti Whātua for having revealed to us some of the history of those places, the significance of those places, which were all centres of settlement that supported very large populations of people. Tāmaki-makau-rau has been a prosperous place historically and, hopefully, will be again. But these are important sites and it is a great credit to Ngāti Whātua that increasingly they are visible. I recall last year attending the opening of a cycleway on Mount Roskill—Puketāpapa. OK, that was a good thing for many reasons, but it was important and significant that Ngāti Whātua were there from the moment it began. They were part of the design of that infrastructure. There is a distinctly Māori flavour to the landscape architecture, to the trail itself. They were there to give their blessing to the project on the opening day. That added a real richness and a value, and I think it is something that increasingly Aucklanders are acknowledging—the value and the benefit that are coming from moving to a much healthier relationship based on the Treaty.

It has been mentioned already, of course, the Takaparawhau occupation in the late 1970s and the tragedy that was associated with it. There was the loss, as will be well recalled, through an accident, of a young child’s life, which was a significant tragedy. It is of great credit, particularly to the Hawke whānau but to all of Ngāti Whātua, that they took that stand. It was a turning point, and not only in Ngāti Whātua history, and not only in Auckland’s history; it was a turning point in the history of this country. It was a moment when a hapū, when an iwi, stood and said “We do not step back from here.” They stood alongside other Māori. They stood alongside Pākehā of, I dare say, every political persuasion. It was a rare moment, it was a turning point, and I think we have to acknowledge that historical moment, which ultimately led to a victory.

We have seen a resurgence of Ngāti Whātua’s presence in the city. They now manage a significant property portfolio. There is an emergent generation of leadership—people like Ngārimu Blair, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for some years. I have been very happy as a volunteer, and purely for my own pleasure, to be involved in some of the planting days on whenua rangatira, to see Ngāti Whātua young people, under their leadership, running event days and doing a zero-waste programme, which not only teaches young people skills and generates some income but proves that young people in the cities can still respond very well to the leadership of the iwi and hapū in very positive ways. The whenua rangatira has always been an asset to Auckland. The revegetation programme and the expansion of that land under some of the provisions of this bill that give Ngāti Whātua increasingly some management rights and some control—indeed, ownership—of the maunga of other sites around Auckland are going to continue to add richness. I think we owe them a great debt of gratitude. We look forward to Auckland becoming an even more dynamic and beautiful city. It is a pleasure to be part of progressing this bill and we look forward to supporting it. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 103

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 30; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.

Abstentions 10

Green Party 10.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for Whānau Ora) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

E ngā maunga o Puketapu rāua ko Manawarū, e ngā awa o Te Ārai (Te-Uru) rāua ko Waipoua, e ngā uri o Rongow’akaata, e ngā uri o Te Kooti; ko Te Kāhui Maunga o W’anganui tēnei e mihi atu nei ki a koutou. Ngāti Maru, Ngāi Taw’iri, Ngāti Kaipo’o nau mai ki te Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the mountains Puketapu and Manawarū, the rivers Te Ārai (Te Uru) and Waipoua, the relatives of Rongowhakaata and Te Kooti, this the People of the Mountains of Whanganui paying homage to you collectively. Welcome to Parliament House Ngāti Maru, Ngāi Tawhiri, and Ngāti Kaipoho; salutations and acknowledgments to you all collectively.]

I want to welcome the representatives of Rongowhakaata and Ngā Uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi, who have joined us here tonight for this significant occasion. Tonight we acknowledge the historical grievances of Rongowhakaata. A particular feature of the settlements is a specific apology to Ngā Uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi and redress to address the ongoing effect of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown in its treatment of their tūpuna. The settlement of historical injustices inevitably brings into our living memory and thoughts those ancestors who gave life to the generations of today. The iwi of Rongowhakaata describe themselves as the descendants of Rongowhakaata and his wives: the sisters Turahiri, Uetupukē, and Moetai. Ruapani is another important tupuna for many of Rongowhakaata.

The first reading of this claims settlement bill is an important step towards completing a journey that has taken many years. It is a journey that began in 1987 with the lodging of Rongowhakaata’s first claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. It stems from the Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa and they were represented in the negotiations with the Crown by their claims committee. Ngā Uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi, also known as Ngā Uri, are a w’ānau group who descend from Te Kooti Rikirangi. Ngā Uri negotiated the specific redress as part of Rongowhakaata’s Treaty settlement. Their area of interest is concentrated around Gisborne and its surrounding lands. It extends from Te Kōwhai on the southern side, across to its most western point at Ruakituri, then northwards to Maungapere and Wharekōpae, and east towards Gisborne City.

The Waitangi Tribunal held its Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa district inquiry in 2001 and 2002, which investigated the claims of the three Tūranga iwi—Rongowhakaata, Ngai Tāmanuhiri, and Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki and affiliates. Although today we acknowledge the 25 years of dedicated commitment in pursuit of the claims first laid in 1987, the matters being dealt with do, of course, stretch out for decades beyond. The historical Treaty claims for Ngā Uri and Rongowhakaata stem from the Crown actions in Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa during the 1860s, which were both severe and unjust.

In 1865 Crown military forces attacked Waerenga-a-hika. There was no apparent reason for doing so. This led to the detention without trial of many of the Rongowhakaata peoples on the Chatham Islands for several years, and the effective confiscation of the wharenui Te Hau ki Tūranga and a large area of Rongowhakaata land at Patutahi. In the first 6 months of 1866 approximately 30 Rongowhakaata men who were considered to be Paimarire sympathisers were taken to the Chatham Islands. They were referred to as “native political offenders”. These men were never tried for any offence. Approximately nine women and eight children were amongst the 49 Tūranga women and 38 children who accompanied their men. The removal of over 200 Māori, including leaders, had a severe impact on their iwi, their hapū, and their w’ānau who remained in Tūranga.

This history has particular relevance for me. Next week I will be heading to Wharekauri—a trip that in today’s times takes approximately 3 hours by plane. It beggars belief to think about a similar journey being undertaken close to 150 years ago, and the questions are multiple. Why Wharekauri? How long did the journey take? What were the conditions of travel? How did w’ānau, separated for over 2 years without reason, ever adjust to the grief, the resentment, and the anger?

I want to share some of the history, as it was recorded in the deed of settlement: “The Government required the detainees and their whānau to live in miserable conditions. The Chatham Islands could get much colder than what prisoners were used to and they did not have adequate clothing. As many as 28 detainees died while on the Chathams including some of the women and children who had accompanied them. It is likely that there were more deaths which went unrecorded. Those prisoners who survived were detained on the Chatham Islands until Te Kooti Rikirangi led an escape in 1868. At that time a bitter war developed, and at Ngatapa in January 1869 Crown forces summarily executed a large number of Rongowhakaata. This has to be one of the most tragic events in the history of Rongowhakaata—in fact in the history of this country—and indeed a shameful past of the Crown. Between 1865 and 1872 more than 40 percent of Tūranga men died as a consequence of Crown military action. A fatal decimation of a people—the impact upon successive generations cannot be under-stated. Since this time, the Crown’s acts and omissions have left Rongowhakaata culturally, economically and socially marginalised. We must never forget this history. It is our history, and it does not need to constrain our future.”

Today this House attempts to understand the hostile context that Rongowhakaata experienced and to make every effort to move forward. This settlement includes an apology for the Crown’s actions and omissions that breached the Treaty and its principles, including those that contributed to the stigmatisation of Te Kooti Rikirangi and his descendants. The Crown recognised the mandate for the Rongowhakaata Claims Committee in 2005. The mandate of Ngā Uri negotiators was also recognised. Three Tūranga iwi entered into the terms of negotiation with the Crown as a collective group in 2007. In 2008 the collective signed an agreement in principle with the Crown. Following the collective separating in 2009, Rongowhakaata and Ngā Uri then entered into negotiations for a deed of settlement. The deed of settlement was initialled at Te Hau ki Tūranga in July 2011 and was subsequently ratified by the claimant community. In September 2011 the Crown and Rongowhakaata and Ngā Uri signed the deed of settlement.

Although the Crown recognises that settlement redress can never fully compensate these iwi for what has been lost through breaches of the Treaty, this settlement is a gesture of goodwill and signifies the beginning of a new post-settlement relationship between Rongowhakaata, Ngā Uri, and the Crown.

I believe it is only right that the last words should go to Rongowhakaata, articulated in the deed of settlement: “Rongowhakaata consider that since May 1840, the Crown has committed fundamental breaches of the spirit, intention and terms of the Treaty causing severe prejudice to Rongowhakaata including unjustifiable loss of life in the protection of their lands and confiscation of their lands and resources … resulting in the economic, social, cultural and political marginalisation and deprivation of Rongowhakaata that is still seen today. On the other hand, Rongowhakaata consider that despite the killing of their people by the Crown and the extreme prejudice and the intergenerational hardship caused by the confiscation of their lands and resources, Rongowhakaata have upheld the spirit and the terms of the Treaty in many ways.” I consider that the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E mihi kau ana ki a koutou o te hau kāinga i tae kaha mai ki konei mō te pō nei. Stanley, Tūtekawa, koutou katoa. Nau mai, hara mai. E roaroa atu te wā i tae mai ki konei Rūhia ki te whakatere haere i te otinga o tēnei tino take. Nō reira tēnā koutou. Nā, te whakaaro i roto i āku, e mau atu ōku whatu kia kite ō koutou kanohi, e whakaaro atu mō rātau e rere atu pērā i a te matua, te pāpā a Darcy, tō māmā Kuini, te matua Paraone, Hēmi, rātau katoa, e kore i konei. Ēngari, e mōhio atu tātau e kaha atu rātau hei tū ā muri i a koutou e tae pai i te oti nei. Nō reira tēnā koutou. Te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare, e Tariana, tēnā koe.

Nā, te mea i roto i āku, he nui atu ngā whakaaro mō te kerēme nei o Rongowhakaata. He nui atu ngā kōrero mō rātau i te mahi mau pū i Taranaki, i te mahi kino o ngā hōia o te Kāwana. Nā, te rerekē i roto i āku te tino wāhi e mahi atu rātau i tō rātau nati i te wāhi nei o Rongowhakaata. I tū kaha atu te tangata a Te Kooti Rikirangi, i mahi atu i tōna mahi, i tū kaha atu te āhua o te Hāhi Pai Mārire ēngari, i whai atu rātau i te mahi o te Ringatū. I pana atu te Kāwana i wētahi o rātau ki tērā wāhi o te moutere i kōrerotia ake e Tariana. Ēngari, nā te mate hoki e roaroa atu te Minita a Chris mō te mahi kino nei. Nā te pai hoki kei te tae tata atu tātau ki te whakatikatika. Nā, te mea i roto i āku, he tika atu kia mau roaroa atu te whakatikatika o tēnei taumaha mō rātau o Rongowhakaata. He tino take hoki tēnei. He nui atu ngā whakaaro, ngā kōrero mō ngā pakanga, ngā mahi o ngā hōia ēngari, te tino taumaha i roto tēnei kerēme, he patu wahine, he patu tamariki, patu tāne, e mau pū ana, e nati atu ana i a rātau. Kāre e tika tērā. Ahakoa tērā āhua, e whawhai atu rātau kia tae pai mai ki konei. Ahakoa ngā piki, ngā heke, te wehewehe e puta ana, kei te rongo atu i ngā tangata nei o te Rōpū Kirīni nei, a Metiria mā, i reira kē rātau e whawhai tonu atu ana kia tae pai mai ki konei.

Nō reira, ki a koe e Chris, e mihi kau ana ēngari, kaua e tuku atu i ngā patapata anake, i ngā kōrero anake. Kāre ngā hua tika o ngā tari, o te kāwana e puta pai. Nō reira, tēnā tātau.

[I extend greetings to you from home, on your efforts to get here this evening. Stanley, Tūtekawa, all of you—welcome, welcome. It has taken a long time to get here, Rūhia, and to speed up the settlement of this vital issue. So I salute you collectively. Now, as my eyes gaze upon your faces, I immediately think about those who have passed away, like the uncle and father figure of Darcy, your mother Kuini, uncle Paraone, as well as Hēmi, all of them. They are no longer here. Nevertheless, we know they will continue to stand strong behind you to ensure that this settlement is reached. So I salute you collectively. Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to you, as well, Tariana.

Now, there are many thoughts inside me about this Rongowhakaata claim, just as there are many stories about those who took up arms in Taranaki, and atrocities by Government soldiers. The difference within me is the stranglehold they had on this place, Rongowhakaata. This person, Te Kooti Rikirangi, was loyal to what he stood for. On the other hand, those of Pai Marire were loyal to their cause but endorsed the Ringatu faith. As a consequence, the Government banished some of them to that part of the island that Tariana referred to. But the trouble, of course, is that the Hon Minister Christopher Finlayson has taken a long time to address this despicable action. Nevertheless, a positive is that we are close to rectifying it. Now to me, it is appropriate that rectifying this burden placed upon those of Rongowhakaata must be durable. This is a vital issue. Thoughts and stories relating to wars and atrocities by the constabulary are numerous, but the real burden in this claim is that about the killing of women, children, and men; the taking up of arms, and the stranglehold over them. That is not right. Despite that, they will continue to battle on until it arrives here safely. Regardless of the ups and downs and the divisions that are being put out, I continue to hear these people from the Green Party like Metiria and others saying that they are going to be still there battling away so that it arrives here safely.

So to you, Chris, I applaud you, but do not just drip feed it and leave it in words alone, otherwise the appropriate departmental and Government benefits will not emerge. Thanks to us all.]

Certainly Te Kooti Rikirangi was perceived by some of his people as a great warrior, and it is interesting to understand that in his first venturings out, he was actually a very close friend of the Crown. Then, through some dastardly deeds and exchanges, he changed ships, jumped the fence, or whatever, and there was a set to. But the interesting thing, having listened to my friends the colleagues from the Greens—and there will always be dissidents in the sense of trying to reach and attain what we perceive as democracy, total democracy—I have yet to see any clan or group of Pākehās come to total agreement. So I want to be very clear that distance will always happen, and that if we intend to encourage and fertilise those people who want to cut asunder or hold up agreements, then we need to think again.

The recognition of Te Kooti—and by Maever and Peter Moeau, and those whānau members in here—is something to be recognised in the sense of his ability to escape from the islands and come back, and to lie low for 4 years and get cornered in Taranaki is an issue that is relevant. For me, I know that there were also disagreements between those in Rongowhakaata over battles that they had with Te Kooti. So it takes a lot of courage for people to join together to come to this House, because it is the semblance of the statute and constitution of this Parliament that has brought them here.

I want to say quite clearly, in support of Minister Turia, let us get real about this deal with Rongowhakaata, because it has been a low-down, dirty deal by the Government in past years. We talk of Parihaka, we talk about all of those things, but the Rongowhakaata people were bombarded and executed. Horror movie stuff—that is what was done to them. And their lands, because they were as fertile as the Waikato plains, were ripped off them through a whole lot of dastardly deeds—measurements by the Crown; non-information—and taken from them without even discussion. Then the individualising of titles and spreading it around selectively has kept, stretched, dissonance over a period of time and people have agonised about it. So I do think that tonight is a night to celebrate, as we start to head towards a positive end for this.

Look, in relation to some parts of the bill, prior to 1865 Rongowhakaata had full control over all its lands. It is interesting that the British fellow who came along called it Poverty Bay. It is now one of the highest producing food bowls in this country, and the interesting thing is it is Rongowhakaata land.

Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, LeaderBrand.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: LeaderBrand is supplied and contracted to by a whole lot of Māori farmers and a whole lot of Māori landholders, whom LeaderBrand does very well off. LeaderBrand would not be LeaderBrand if it were not for the Māori suppliers. That LeaderBrand might be great now is right, but let us not forget that one grievance that was created by the Crown, and a measured grievance, is something that is forgotten in this settlement.

So the Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill states: “The Crown acknowledges that looting by its military forces in the aftermath of the Waerenga a Hika attack contributed to acute food shortages, which caused some loss of life among Tūranga Māori.” I want to recognise that. It also states: “The Crown acknowledges that the indefinite detention in harsh conditions of many Rongowhakaata”—and I went to Ngātapa, where they were, on the Chatham Islands. Right at the end of the island is where some of them lived. What a long and lonely and distant land, and yet they still survived, and that Rongowhakaata are here today is surely support for their courage. I am glad that the Crown is accepting the unwarranted hardship that has been inflicted on them. Rongowhakaata needs to be recognised.

Minister Finlayson, I wanted to talk about this issue in here in one part in relation to—actually, the cultural redress first. I think the return of Te Hau ki Tūranga to Rongowhakaata is brilliant. I think that what is important, Minister, is that the resourcing goes with it, to ensure that it happens the way they want it to happen, and I am sure you have been lobbying well on that. Because Rukupō in his own right was one of the great cultural maestros of that time. There was another one up in Hauiti called Hingangaroa, but I understand that Rukupō was a lot better. That their spirit and whakapapa are embodied in his artworks and it still survives is a great thing, and it is wonderful that it should be sent back, but let us make sure about the resources, Minister.

The other relevant issue is this relationship redress. I have been involved—and I want to think of some of the other people who have worked on Rongowhakaata from the beginning—in a whole lot of settlements. With regard to this relationship redress, Minister—and I know that some of these departments are getting cuts done to them—I think it is more important that we take a measured look and ensure that this is not just some paper charter, you know, a case where there is a memorandum of understanding and nothing happens, because I know of one iwi that did it up on the Taranaki coast and Whanganui, and it ain’t happening. Nice words.

The deed provides for protocols to be issued by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Energy and Resources, and the Minister of Fisheries. It states: “The protocols set out how these Government agencies will interact and consult with Rongowhakaata when carrying out statutory duties and functions within the Rongowhakaata area of interest.” I think that sounds quite good, but it is pretty light.

You see, Rongowhakaata people know how to speak English and Māori. They have actually become quite learned on the constitutional legislation, and I think it is really important that the Ministry for the Environment and those ministries that can make a hell of a lot of difference get serious about the partnership—they are nice to them when you are around and they do not do the deeds after. So I wanted to point that out. With regard to the leadership bodies: “The settlement includes an undertaking to establish a central leadership group, which will also include Ngai Tāmanuhiri and Te Aitanga a Mahaki and Affiliates, to provide a forum for Tūranga iwi to engage with central government.” Those forums, Minister, are serious.

I know this Tau Henare over here got married yesterday. You know, there is one great thing about whakapapa. My nanny always told me when I went out on the road: “Don’t you ever takahi on any other Māori’s neck, because you don’t know whose whakapapa you will be tramping on.” I remember in my younger days when I used to push the Ngarangiones around, and I found out they were my first cousins, so you have got to be a bit careful. Rukupō’s two sisters are Tau’s tūpuna. I want to mihi to Tau, who always thought that he was a Ngāpuhi from Tai Tokerau, but they come from Rongowhakaata. At times people forget that, Tau. Mihi atu i a koe.

But can I say in closing that this settlement, for me, is one of the more serious—not because we are here tonight; not because they are here tonight. If you take a snapshot of all the hard-done-by iwi, these people have been kicked right where it hurts. They have been treated, you know, like just whatever, and it is certainly humbling that we can start to do something about it. I hope, Minister, that there is serious continuation in the sense of doing what Rongowhakaata needs. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I want to begin by acknowledging what Mr Horomia said, because there was a lot of food for thought in his contribution tonight. Those who question the bipartisan efforts, the efforts of Labour Governments and National Governments, in what we are doing, and who, perhaps, sort of speak with lofty disdain about Treaty settlements, should, I think, on occasion read the historical accounts in bills such as this one, the Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill, and understand the history of what went on, and then they will realise that this is very important work. It is work that is long overdue, and it is work that is very important. So I endorse everything he said, and everything Mrs Turia said, and I will make a few comments of my own now.

First, I want to welcome the members of Rongowhakaata and Ngā Uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi who have joined us tonight for this very significant occasion. We are not rushing through legislation; far from it. There have been changes to the Standing Orders to allow us, once a session, to extend the hours. This is not under urgency; this is a very deliberative exercise so that we can address Treaty settlement legislation properly and so that iwi who have signed their deeds of settlement receive the fruits of those settlements as quickly as possible. Time and time again when I go out to negotiations or I sign deeds of settlement, most recently with Te Aupōuri and Te Hiku, I find that I am signing with the grandsons, granddaughters, grand nephews, and so on of those who commenced the claims. So there is a moral imperative to get on with the job and to do it quickly, not for the benefit of the Crown but for the benefit of iwi.

This is the second settlement in the Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa region. It follows, as Mr Horomia said, Ngai Tāmanuhiri’s settlement, which had its first reading last month. I really want to acknowledge the tremendous progress that has been made in this region.

As a rookie Minister in 2009 I went out on a hīkoi, in very early January, as I recall. Most of the members of the House of Representatives were either on the golf course or at the beach, but I was on my hīkoi, and my first meeting was actually in Gisborne. Since then I have been there many times and have come to know, respect, and very much like the leaders of Rongowhakaata. Many have been involved with these claims for more than a decade, and so I acknowledge you. I acknowledge the Ngā Uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi negotiation teams, and I particularly acknowledge Willie Te Aho in the gallery tonight, Stanley Pardoe, Jody Wyllie, Meka Whaitiri, Tūtekawa Wyllie, Maever Moeau, and Peter Moeau. I particularly want to pay my respects to Kristen Maynard. I think there were times when she felt we would never get here. She was at that first meeting in Gisborne, as I recall. She worked very, very hard for Rongowhakaata, and I salute her and thank her for her great work.

I have said before, and I will say it again—because these words are not pro forma, warm-feelings sorts of words, but they need to be said at the first reading of every settlement bill—that engagement in Treaty negotiations requires courage, and it requires determination and perseverance. So today the Crown seeks to address the historic grievances of Rongowhakaata and Ngā Uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi and, as Mr Horomia said, then move forward to a post-settlement relationship that is based on mutual trust, cooperation, and respect. And I really do pick up what he said, because what is often lost sight of is that when these deeds are signed, the relationship does change. It is all very well to sign the cultural protocols and so on, but the obligation on the Crown is a very serious one: not to go through these things in a pro forma way, but to engage with that same spirit of cooperation and optimism that was there at the time of the signing of these deeds of settlement. A lot of work is being done on post-settlement relationships to make sure that the Crown does live up to these words—that they are not fine but empty words and then the Crown can move on to something else, but that they are something that will be respected and honoured, year in and year out, regardless of which administration is in power.

The people of Rongowhakaata have suffered some of the worst Treaty breaches in New Zealand’s history. Mrs Turia has outlined these grievances, but I want to emphasise the seriousness of them. The tribunal’s report on Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa stated that the Crown’s breaches against Rongowhakaata and other Tūranga iwi were some of the most severe in New Zealand’s history and were some of the darkest days of this nation. Whenever I sign a Treaty settlement—I suppose it happened to my Labour predecessors—I receive some nasty emails, people questioning why we do this sort of thing. Some people think I am hopelessly biased toward Māori, and gone troppo and so on, but anyone who denies the importance of this work should do their homework, as Mr Horomia said, and study the history and the historical account. The history of what Rongowhakaata suffered should be very well known. That is why the legislation is drafted—so that the historical account is there, and so that the apology is there.

The bill is going to give effect to the Rongowhakaata and Ngā Uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi deed of settlement. It includes important settlement redress. The historical account, again, as I emphasise, is not pro forma; it is very important to read into the permanent record of this House of Parliament what exactly happened. Equally important is that the Crown acknowledgments are read in, and the apologies.

I have to say that if anything delights me about this bill, it is clause 23, because it provides that Te Hau ki Tūranga vests in the trustees on settlement date. I recall, in September 2011, when we initialled the deed of settlement at Te Papa. It was a great day, and I very much look forward to the day that that most beautiful wharenui is returned to its rightful place in Tūranga. Mr Horomia is, of course, quite right. It is important—and it will happen, I promise him—that when it goes back, appropriate resources are provided so that it is housed and protected in a place worthy of the dignity of the wharenui. But I have to say that I also want to acknowledge Te Papa, which very early on recognised that, whatever legalisms there were about te wharenui morally, of course, it did not belong to them; it belonged to Rongowhakaata.

So there are numerous other vestings, protocols with key Government departments, membership on the central leadership group, and statutory acknowledgments. Then, of course, there is the commercial redress made up of the financial redress, and then other commercial redress.

Let me conclude by saying that if the bill is passed, all of the historical Treaty claims will be settled. The Crown will be released and discharged from its obligations in respect of historical Treaty claims. But, as both Mrs Turia and Mr Horomia said, there is a new relationship, and one will hope and expect the Government to perform in the future toward an iwi that has suffered far too much in the past.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. E mihi tonu atu ki a koutou Rongowhakaata me ngā uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, hara mai ki raro i te tuanui o tēnei Whare Raeona. E aku hou, e aku mema o tēnei Pāremata, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, and greetings to you, Rongowhakaata, and relatives of Te Kooti Rikirangi, greetings. Welcome under the roof of this Chamber, the “lions’ den”, welcome. To my colleagues, and fellow members of this House, greetings to you all.]

It is an honour to join my Labour colleagues this evening in support of the first reading of the Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill. As we have heard from previous speakers this evening, this is a long journey in terms of the progression of Treaty settlement claims—in particular, for Rongowhakaata. In fact, this year marks the 20th year—20 years—since the lodging of the first of Rongowhakaata’s claims with the Waitangi Tribunal.

I acknowledge Stan Pardoe—whom I had some professional dealings with when I was with Ngāi Tahu and their fisheries—Tūtekawa Wyllie, and other members of Rongowhakaata who have come here this evening. I acknowledge their work right at the early stages, 20 years ago. So there has been a long, 20-year history in the progression right through to the deed of settlement, which was signed on 30 September last year. The passage of this bill gives effect to certain aspects of the deed of settlement. So I am very proud to be standing alongside my Labour colleagues to support this bill.

As has been discussed and covered earlier in the other speeches, the grievances of Rongowhakaata represent some of the darkest history of our country—very, very severe breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. So I just acknowledge the people of Rongowhakaata—in particular, the kaumātua who initiated and have worked on this claim and who cannot be with us this evening; the kaumātua who are here this evening; the mandated negotiators, some of whom I mentioned earlier; the claims committee; and the people of Rongowhakaata. I would also like to acknowledge Ngā Uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi, the whānau associated with Te Kooti Rikirangi, who have also joined in a part of this bill.

There is a long history, a long grievance, for Rongowhakaata, and it is great that we have come to this stage of this first reading, whereby we can—and I personally can—play our part to aid in the progression of this bill so we can ultimately reach the final passage into legislation. Then Rongowhakaata can be recapitalised, in a way, and initiate all of the aspects of the settlement so they can actually forge their own future.

The breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi that the Crown inflicted on Rongowhakaata—there were over 20 chiefs of the Tūranga region who signed the Treaty of Waitangi, including those from Rongowhakaata, and up until 1865, as the Hon Parekura Horomia mentioned earlier, the Rongowhakaata people were very, very successful and productive iwi, productive landowners, and productive entrepreneurs. They owned and operated several trading ships, including Te Raaka, Whitipaea, and various other trading ships. They were involved in exports from Tūranga up to Auckland and over across to Australia. What an amazing history Rongowhakaata has.

Although it is important that we go through the process of acknowledgments and apologies, I am just looking forward to the post-settlement future that iwi like Rongowhakaata, and other iwi, are embarking on post their Treaty settlements. I look forward to seeing Rongowhakaata again exporting to the world. I know they are already doing it from a lot of their lands—productive lands—up there. We did so with Stan in the fisheries, so I am looking forward to them actually re-instigating that fleet of trading ships around the world. Would that not be great?

Just getting back to the provisions of the bill, there are three parts to the bill. I will not actually go into the cultural and commercial aspects of the redress, but I think it is very important for me, in reading the bill, to see the acknowledgments and the apologies that the Crown has agreed to and that have been expressed in the deed of settlement and also in the bill. As the Hon Parekura mentioned, it is a very dark history, but it is one that actually light needs to be brought upon. That it is actually for all time reflected in the bill, which will eventually go through to legislation of those grievances, is a recognition of the process that has been gone through.

In particular, we go back to the oppression in Waerenga-a-hika, the exile of many Rongowhakaata to the Chatham Islands, the summary executions by the Crown and military officers in the events at Ngātapa, the deed of cession—which was forced on Rongowhakaata under duress, which extinguished all of their customary land interests—and the further fragmentation, alienation, and confiscations of their lands through various commissions and other mechanisms of the Crown such as the Public Works Act, which continued right up into the last century.

As has been fully documented through the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry and in the deed of settlement, that is a very dark history, but it is good that we have the opportunity to reflect that—and the Crown, especially—and to acknowledge the breaches of the Treaty and its principles on Rongowhakaata through those historical actions.

I would also now like to talk briefly around Ngā Uri o Te Kooti Rikirangi, which is also joined with Rongowhakaata in this bill. Te Kooti Rikirangi was the founder of Te Haahi Ringatū—highly respected and revered, and a spiritual and cultural figurehead for many Māori and Pākehā alike. Again, I commend this bill for rectifying and correcting a lot of the misinformation that has been out there on Te Kooti, and I commend the provisions that put the record straight. I also do so as a member of Te Haahi Rātana—Tahupōtiki Wīremu Ratana is one of the greatest Māori leaders our country has ever had in my background. So therefore it is great that we can have recognition for Te Kooti Rikirangi, and wider appreciation of the contribution and the legacy of that tremendous, wonderful leader of our people.

I very much tautoko Rongowhakaata. I thank them for travelling down this evening. I am looking forward to being a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and tautoko-ing this bill, working under my whanaunga Tau and other fellow members, and travelling to Rongowhakaata through the select committee process. I commend this bill to the next stage and look forward to further contributions. Kia ora anō tātou.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I want to take just a short call on this bill, the Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill, notwithstanding the importance of it, and I want to acknowledge those who are in the House today who have worked so hard to bring this bill to Parliament. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation’s referral to the Māori Affairs Committee. We look forward, again, to hearing at the select committee from those who have supported and worked on this bill but also from those who might disagree with it; they should feel free to bring those issues to the select committee.

Of course, settlement bills are different from other kinds of legislation. In effect, the select committee has no real power to make amendments to these bills, because they are the results of negotiations that have been conducted with Government. So unless Government and the claimants agree to amendments, amendments do not happen. I think in my nearly 10 years here I have seen only two settlements be significantly altered in terms of redress, one of which was the result of negotiations that the Green Party did. It is a difficult thing to have settlement bills changed, and I just ask that members of the House who have been a little critical of the Greens’ view acknowledge that—that this is a different kind of process.

I also ask that they acknowledge that those who are missed out or locked out of the settlement process because they, for whatever reason, disagree with the legislation—not particularly the Rongowhakaata bill but in general—have often made claims to the tribunal, have fought hard and worked hard, and have spent a great deal of time and money bringing those claims to the tribunal only to have the Crown determine that they should be settled not with the people who brought the claims but with someone else. Most settlements have included in them Wai claims that have been settled without the consent of those particular claimants. That is not heard of in any other part of New Zealand law. There is nowhere in New Zealand law where some other agency can come along and take your case and settle it for you. These settlements are not the same as other kinds of processes or negotiations. They are not the same as other pieces of legislation, and it is important that we acknowledge that.

With this particular claim, the Rongowhakaata claim, I want to agree with much of what has been said tonight about the historical implications and the historical harms that were committed; the summary executions of some 300 Rongowhakaata at Ngātapa; the attacks and the loss of lives at Waerenga-a-hika pā; the exile and the illegal imprisonment of more than 100 Rongowhakaata at Wharekauri, the Chathams; the raupatu of Rongowhakaata lands, leaving them nearly landless in the 20th century; and the theft of Te Hau ki Tūranga—because that is what it was—from Ōrākaiapu pā and the effect that this had on that hapū. And there have been subsequent breaches through legislation over the many years since that time. This settlement will be able to provide some redress for those, as we have heard. It is a good thing for Rongowhakaata that they can have some of that returned, particularly Te Hau ki Tūranga. I understand that there may be some issues about the nature of that return that we may well hear in the select committee, and we welcome any of the views of those involved as to how that is working and how that will operate. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations made some commitments around the return of Te Hau ki Tūranga.

The details of those commitments matter; they will matter to the claimants and to those who have an interest in this settlement. I certainly hope that at the select committee we get to hear the details of those commitments before we are then asked to support the legislation further, just to make sure that they are firm, that the resources are provided, and that the needs of the iwi and hapū are met in the process, rather than being some kind of flagship for the Crown.

So we look forward to seeing this legislation come before us. We look forward to meeting and talking with the claimants and the others who are involved. We know that this has been a significant body of work. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): On a more positive note, I want to take a very short call, and I want to greet the leaders of Rongowhakaata, the kaumātua, and the kuia here tonight, and those, of course, who have not been able to make the journey down from Tai Rāwhiti to see this culmination of years and years of work take place in the House tonight. I want to also congratulate those who have been involved in giving strong leadership through some very difficult times, when it seemed that this day would never come, but they have remained steadfast, they have remained positive, and they have remained open to discussions with the Crown, no matter who was in Government.

The history that is outlined in this bill before the House tonight, the Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill, is not one that any one of us can be proud of, but the generous acknowledgment by Rongowhakaata of the need for them to move forward has to be put on record in this House, and fellow speakers have done that ahead of me. I welcome the agreement regarding their taonga, their wharenui, which is currently housed in Te Papa, and acknowledge their desire to see that returned to its homeland and maintained and treasured with the respect that it deserves. So I am very pleased to stand in this House to welcome the beginning of recognition of Rongowhakaata and the redress that they are due. Thank you.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and I humbly state how proud I am to be here tonight and to be a positive part of this essential healing process, as all of us are—to be a part of history. These settlements will enable the Te Kooti Rikirangi whānau and the Rongowhakaata whānau to finally be able to look to the future. When you have been dispossessed of your land, it costs future generations in so many ways. Now, with these settlements, Māori can move forward, leverage on assets, and invest wisely, following the kaumātuas’ vision and strategies for the education of the people. I spoke about spiritual dignity and healing earlier tonight, and part of the proof of that will be the job creation for Māori and Pākehā when the settlement is paid and the vision and strategies can be actioned for the good of all the wider Gisborne community.

Te Kooti Rikirangi and Rongowhakaata whānau have far-reaching extended family ties. As Ngāti Maniapoto, I am proud of Te Tokanga-nui-a-Noho, the koha built for Maniapoto who gave refuge to Te Kooti when he needed it. And as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to the upcoming interaction and discussions.

In relation to Rongowhakaata, as pointed out by many of my peers tonight, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, has family connections, since his tupuna, also named Tau Henare, married a Rongowhakaata princess. There is another synergy there, because the honourable Tau married his very own Māori princess last night. Now that he is happily married, I know—I can see—that he will be far more good-natured and tractable. Given that reality, I am confident that, through the process of this Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill, we will all move as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.

Many people have made this settlement claim their life’s work, and New Zealand First would like to acknowledge one of the main drivers, Darcy Ria, now passed away but here in spirit.

We need to bear in mind that these tribes occupy reserves that are not always blessed with good infrastructure and services. Some are out in the backblocks, and this challenge lifts the bar because the people will expect local benefits as well as long-term developments. A Treaty settlement does not always allow for freedom of investment because the assets are often land-based, but a good export return will generate a good income. So we need to keep an eye on the future, for all settlements.

Within this bill, there is also an outstanding issue of an implementation nature that needs to be worked through involving the Crown and the meeting house Te Hau ki Tūranga, currently at Te Papa and carved by Raharuhi Rukupō. It may not be known by Minister Finlayson that Raharuhi is also the biblical term for Lazarus. Far be it from me to say that this debate is scriptural, but let it be known that New Zealand First effected a Lazarus-like feat in the recent election, enabling us to stand and offer support and a guarding, watchful eye to this settlement. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kai te mihi ki a koutou katoa, e aku rangatira, e aku tuākana i hara mai nei i tēnei wā. Nō reira, e pātai au ki a koutou, ko wai tēnei Ngāpuhi e tū ana i mua i a koutou? Nō reira, he Rongowhakaata ahau.

[I acknowledge you all, my leaders and elder siblings, who have come here at this moment. So I ask you collectively: why is this Ngā Puhi standing before you? It is because I am a Rongowhakaata.]

So who am I? Briefly—sometimes I ask myself that: who am I? But this is who I am, for all and sundry to know. I come out of Te Noke, who was a sister of Hauora, who was a sister of Raharuhi Rukupō. The artistic side of my lineage somehow has deserted me, and it has jumped to my son, who is a student at Toihoukura in Gisborne. So it all sort of fits.

I am over the moon to be able to have a few minutes in the House tonight, ostensibly because of what I consider to be the most heinous crimes perpetrated against a people. Not only were members of Rongowhakaata summarily executed—and that is what it was. They were killed. They were murdered. They were taken out the back and shot. Their house that Rukupō carved—and we are not talking about a nickel-and-dime artist; we are talking about a person who is the equivalent, most probably, of somebody like Picasso, or somebody like Rembrandt. If we really knew our history and really wondered at our history, Rukupō would be in that category. My brother over there, Parekura, mentioned that I got hitched last night—[Interruption] I still had to make her a cup of coffee this morning, so nothing has changed! But her connections: some will know that she is Ngāti Porou on her mother’s side. But also she is out of Te Aitangi-a-Māhaki—Arapeta Te Taniwha, whose daughter was taken to the Chathams and perished on the Chathams as part of the retribution that the Crown laid out to Te Kooti and his followers.

Every time for the last 12 months that I have been in the Gisborne area I have jumped in a car and travelled around Ngātapa and little spots around Rongowhakaata, wondering who I was and also getting a feel for, like I said, what were the most heinous of crimes perpetrated on a people in New Zealand. My reason for standing here tonight is not so much to talk about what is in the Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill but to pass a message to New Zealand, and that is to read the story—read New Zealand’s unique story. We do have a story to tell. I along with my colleagues cannot wait until the Māori Affairs Committee gets into Manutuke—[Interruption]—yes, you are welcome at my place—and hears some of the stories and why we should be making sure we pass this legislation.

But you cannot call yourself a truly democratic society until all of your nation’s sores have been healed. We travel around the world and we talk about democracy, and we talk about a truly democratic society, but we have to heal those wounds first of all before we can truly go and lecture other people around the world. We have to hear the stories to be able to heal those wounds, and I think this is one of the ways that we do tell the story, not only by settling with a group of people but also by enshrining in legislation that story, so that for generations to come young people can pick up a book, a story, and read about our history.

If you go to Matawhero you will get some sense of just a little bit of what happened—the massacre at Matawhero. When I was at school—and I was a great scholar at Hillary College—we used to study this topic called social studies. And in it was always the story of how Te Kooti massacred those people up at Matawhero. But when you read behind the scenes and read the story of what actually happened, it is no wonder he went on the rampage. Te Kooti was a mate of the Crown, or so he thought, until somebody stitched him up because of a business deal. He was a businessman. He most probably would be a member of the National Party.

Grant Robertson: What about Mauri Pacific?

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, maybe. But he was stitched up quite nicely by a number of people who now reside in the urupā just up in Mākara.

These are fantastic opportunities to pour out our soul as a nation and get on the road to making sure our young people have something. I cannot wait for the day, whether I am here in the Chamber or not, of the return of Te Hau ki Tūranga. You can kill a people, and they always pop up. They always have uri. But what the Crown did in stealing somebody’s house—and it was not just a house; it was the essence of Rongowhakaata. They stole that and they took it down here, and that was not the end of it. Some of the carvings over the period that the Dominion Museum had it were cut, were sawn, were made smaller than they were just to be able to fit into the Dominion Museum. So the crime continues on. Not only did they take it; they tried to render it smaller so it could fit into a museum. I consider that to be—I was going to use the “h” word, but I do not think I will. But I consider it to be a heinous crime that we are about to, hopefully, pay some recompense for.

These bills are not done in the dead of night. They are not rushed through. How can anybody suggest to me or anybody else that they are rushed through when these people have been waiting for justice for hundreds of years? It is about time and I think I speak for all of the members of the House that we revel in this sort of legislation. We should pat ourselves on the back for a job well done, and, hopefully, we will not take too long through the select committee process to get the bill back here for its third reading so that these people can get on with being who they are: Rongowhakaata hard. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 9.31 p.m.