Wednesday, 25 July 2012

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Visitors

Zimbabwe—Prime Minister and Minister of State

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Rt Hon Morgan Tsvangirai MP, Prime Minister of the Republic of Zimbabwe, is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair, and that the Hon Jameson Timba, Minister of State, and the delegation in the Speaker’s gallery, also be welcomed.

The Rt Hon Morgan Tsvangirai, accompanied by the Minister for Primary Industries, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Statutory Holidays—Waitangi Day and Anzac Day

1. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “My expectations are that this will be a busy, hard three years’ work and we will need to deliver results for New Zealanders”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): On this side of the House, yes, and on the other side of the House, I am sure that David Cunliffe is very busy. He sees it as 3 years of hard work and is sure it will deliver a result.

David Shearer: Will he and his caucus deliver results for hard-working New Zealanders by supporting David Clark’s bill to have a day off on the Monday when Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fall on a weekend?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

David Shearer: Does he agree with Tourism Industry Association chief executive officer Martin Snedden, who said “Creating long weekends will boost New Zealand’s economy in relevant years by stimulating domestic tourism.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

David Shearer: Does he agree with Judith Collins that having a public holiday the following Monday undermines Anzac Day and Waitangi Day commemorations?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the Minister makes a very fair point.

David Shearer: Does he understand that hard-working New Zealanders think it is fair to have a holiday on the Monday when the public holiday falls on a Sunday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I understand the concerns New Zealanders might have. I also understand the issues at stake. There are many people who would feel very, very strongly that Mondayisation would be taking away potentially from those very, very significant days. Let us say this—[Interruption] They are baying like a bunch of banshees, but you had 9 years in Government and you did not do anything about it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call Leader of the Opposition, I say that the Speaker did not have the last 9 years in Government.

David Shearer: In light of his last answer, could he answer how Christmas Day in 2010 was undermined by having a holiday the following week; and on that basis, would he consider taking Monday away when Christmas Day falls on a weekend?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can understand why David Shearer is focused on Christmas Day, because that is the only day that David Cunliffe takes off from plotting. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think some attempt to address the question should be made.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I gave it my best shot. If one looks at the issue of Mondayisation, yes, there will always be a range of views. But I think there are many New Zealanders who would say that when it comes to Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, they are very significant, peculiar days to New Zealand, and therefore the honouring of those days when they occur makes sense. I know the Labour Party members want to take a holiday; it is pretty obvious from the amount of work they do not do. And good news: you are in for a lot longer holiday than you are planning.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hope the Speaker is not in for a lot longer holiday than he is planning. [Interruption] Enough said.

State-owned Assets, Sales—Government Policy

2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “we don’t favour one group over another”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full quote, which I made at the National Party conference about the National Party, which was “We have tolerance and respect for all New Zealanders and we don’t favour one group over another.” Although it is not part of my ministerial responsibility, the point I was making is that we are a broad church party and not aligned to a particular interest group such as unions.

Dr Russel Norman: Is not paying the brokerage fees of retail investors in the asset sales favouring the roughly 5 percent of New Zealanders whom Treasury expects to directly buy shares over the 95 percent of New Zealanders who are not expected to buy shares?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has a number of wide-ranging objectives in terms of the mixed-ownership model programme. One of those is to see as widespread ownership as possible, by as many New Zealanders as possible—for it to be as accessible as possible. I need to check the point about whether we are paying brokerage fees. I would be very surprised if we were doing that. We certainly have a loyalty bonus aimed at those New Zealanders, if that is what the member means.

Dr Russel Norman: Well, is he aware that there is $56 million in the Budget primarily to pay the brokerage fees to the selling syndicate; and why is it fair for all taxpayers to cover the brokerage fees of the 5 percent?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to check that matter. I am sure the member is probably incorrect in the assumption he is making. If he wants a detailed answer, he would be better to put down a question to the Minister responsible.

Dr Russel Norman: Why does the Government claim that asset sales are about mum and dad investors, when Treasury’s numbers show that, in fact, 95 percent of mums and dads would end up subsidising the 5 percent who can afford to buy shares?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I am not sure Treasury’s advice does show that. In fact, I would reject that. I draw the attention of the member to the following, which is that of the last 219 initial public offerings that we looked at, the Government of the day gave retail incentives in 110 of them, and loyalty bonuses in 84. It is quite a widespread technique used everywhere. This member seems, I have got to say, to be quite incredible. Having spent the last year berating me for wanting to sell shares, theoretically, to foreigners, which is not what I want to do, he is now berating me for making sure I sell them to New Zealanders.

Dr Russel Norman: Why does the Government claim that asset sales would improve electricity market competition, when the electricity provided by the publicly owned power companies is already 12 percent cheaper than that from the private providers, and privatisation would remove that anchor on the market, and, hence, we would likely see increased power prices?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Like many of the numbers that the member quotes, those are just rubbish. But if we go back to the broader issue, what really drives power prices is the structure of the electricity industry—something that this Government has reformed. That is why under the previous Labour Government power prices went up 72 percent while those members sat on their hands, and under this Government they have gone up 14 percent.

Dr Russel Norman: Why does the Government claim that asset sales would improve electricity market competition, when the restructuring that he just referred to was possible only because the energy companies were State-owned enterprises, and once they are made into mixed-ownership model companies the Government will lose the capacity to perform exactly that kind of restructuring where it moves assets around?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Competition in a market is competition amongst all participants. What the member has just said is absolute rubbish. He is saying that competition exists because we happen currently, as a country, to 100 percent own Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, and Genesis, but he does not count competition that might be provided by Contact Energy, of which the Government has no ownership. That is a ridiculous argument.

Dr Russel Norman: Why does the Government claim that asset sales are about deepening New Zealand capital markets and getting Kiwis involved in the share market, and then go and decide to list those companies on the Australian stock exchange; is it because more Kiwis are leaving than ever before for Australia, under his administration?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, a cynic might say it is in case the member moves back. The Government has not made a decision yet about whether the companies will be listed on the ASX. But, as I have said publicly before, the advice is that that may be the right thing to do, not because we will see a lot of trading on the ASX—eight of the top 10 New Zealand companies are listed on the New Zealand exchange and the ASX, and the vast bulk of the trading in those companies takes place on the New Zealand exchange—but because the mandate of some Australian fund managers that buy shares on behalf of New Zealanders as well as others requires them to be listed on the ASX. Of course we can take that opportunity away, but, again, we would take away some of the price competitiveness that others might enjoy if they bought those shares.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that the Government has failed to convince New Zealanders of the arguments around asset sales, as shown by every major opinion poll, is that because the Government actually does not have very good reasons, and his approach now is to say “Rubbish!” to anyone who disagrees with him, and to tell the people of New Zealand: “We are simply going to force it down your throat.” in a Muldoonist way, just like previous National Governments have?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are many analogies one could draw with me, but Muldoon is probably not one of them. Let me run the maths past the member. There were a touch over a million New Zealanders who voted for the National Party at the most recent general election, where front and centre stage was this policy, and last weekend 79 protestors turned up to oppose it. And 1 million is greater than 79. If the member cared enough about it, he would have gone out in the rain and protested, but he was tucked up in his warm, insulated—thanks to the National Government—house, reading some leftie magazine he enjoys, instead of being out there protesting with the other 79.

Housing Affordability and Social Housing—Productivity Commission Report

3. PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on housing affordability?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Housing affordability is important for fairness and for allocation of capital in the economy. The Productivity Commission released a report on housing affordability that found that housing in New Zealand has become increasingly unaffordable over the past decade. Real house prices almost doubled between 2001 and 2007. In particular, it found that there is almost no building of houses that are affordable for New Zealanders in the lowest quartile of incomes. The commission found that this affects communities and puts pressures on the Government’s fiscal position, because the Government has very large subsidies to the cost of housing.

Paul Goldsmith: What are some of the factors behind housing affordability issues in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Productivity Commission found that the price of housing has been driven up by a combination of rising demand and unresponsive supply. Housing prices boomed in the 2000s, backed by large Government transfers, strong population growth, and favourable terms of trade, but the supply of housing has been unable to keep up with demand. We agree with the Productivity Commission’s view that urban planning has played a critical role in constraining the supply of land and constraining the opportunity for higher-density development within cities.

Paul Goldsmith: Why does the Government regard the issue of housing affordability as a priority?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If we left the situation as we inherited it from the previous Government, housing would be too expensive for young, lower-income, and migrant New Zealanders, who would find themselves locked out of the housing market and locked into poor and low-quality housing. This Government made it the first inquiry of the Productivity Commission when it was set up, and intends to follow through by working with local government and with the planning and development industry to improve housing affordability.

Denis O’Rourke: How confident is the Minister in the Social Housing Unit, when the Productivity Commission report on affordable housing states: “Although the formal objectives of the SHU are clear, its structure as a semi-autonomous body leaves room for unclear priorities, mixed purposes and misaligned accountabilities.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We appreciate the advice of the Productivity Commission. The Social Housing Unit is a very early attempt to undo the substantial mess left in social housing by the previous Labour Government, with around about $5 billion worth of houses in poor condition, the wrong size, and in the wrong place. They are not enabling the taxpayer to help those New Zealanders who are in serious housing need and need assistance.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about how confident the Minister was about those issues. I do not think he answered that question.

Mr SPEAKER: That type of question asks for an opinion, and the Minister gave his opinion. He said that the views of the Productivity Commission were very valuable to the Government. Therefore, obviously, it takes the views quite seriously. When asking for an opinion like that, there is no particular answer to that kind of question.

Hon Annette King: Does he appreciate the advice of the chair of the Productivity Commission, who said recently that the Government’s budget for social housing aimed at making housing affordable for low-income New Zealanders is well short of the mark, and does not meet current need, and that expanding the role of social housing is at the heart of addressing affordability?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly do not agree with the last remark, because, actually, the heart of housing affordability is enabling all New Zealanders, not just that small minority who are in significant housing need. But in respect of the other remarks that the commissioner has made, yes, we broadly agree with them. I think even the member has made some useful comments herself in the last few weeks to the effect that if we want a proper allocation of capital in the economy, if we want to be more effective in the way that we assist New Zealanders with housing, we need to rethink the current models, and that is what we are doing.

Paul Goldsmith: What issues is the Government considering in preparing its response to the Productivity Commission’s report on housing affordability?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is looking at all the issues raised by the Productivity Commission, which include land supply, resource and building consenting, development contributions, liability rules, cost of building materials, and industry structure. Actually, to that we would add the fiscal costs to the Government, which include all of the housing subsidies, the implicit subsidy in the ownership of $15 billion worth of Housing New Zealand Corporation assets, and the significant transfers through Working for Families and other schemes, which are there partly to help New Zealand households meet the excessive cost of housing.

Hon Annette King: If the Minister does agree with the chair of the Productivity Commission, why did he cut the budget for social housing over the next 3 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I would contest the Minister’s view about the social housing budget being cut. Certainly—

Hon Trevor Mallard: She’s not the Minister yet.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —the member’s views—she can put down a question to the Minister of Housing about the detail. But in the interests of getting more assistance for more New Zealanders more efficiently out of the Housing New Zealand Corporation, we are changing the way the money is used, which means less focus on some of the individual schemes the previous Government had in place, and more focus on having more larger providers of social housing.

Environment—Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: When his office had a “quick look at the matters involved” with regard to the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, whom did they speak to and what documents did they look at to arrive at their conclusion that “we did not find anything that raised concerns to us”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Between my office and the Minister for the Environment’s office a review was undertaken of the documents released to the member under the Official Information Act, the funding arrangements, and the scope of the work undertaken. From that review, we were satisfied that the matter did not warrant further investigation.

Grant Robertson: Why did he and his office not consider that the email from Guy Salmon on 6 September 2011 was a cause for concern, given that in that email Mr Salmon sought to pre-empt the outcome of the independent panel’s consideration of the trust’s application to the Community Environment Fund, an email that led a ministry official to say that the trust was “pressuring the ministry”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We would reject the assertions that the member has made. I make two points. Firstly, the Community Environment Fund funding was actually never used. I am advised that around 15 months passed between the trust initially seeking Community Environment Fund funding and the final decision being made not to provide it. That might be rushed, in the Labour Party’s time and thinking, but 15 months is not rushed under this Government.

Grant Robertson: Why did he and his office not consider the statement from Guy Salmon in the email of 6 September 2011 to be a concern, when that statement reads: “Nick gave me to understand that he was going to establish collaborative processes as a specific priority to be funded in the forthcoming … round; however there was no sign of that on the application form. I worry that Nick is so overloaded that he has not actually been on top of looking after this project.”, and does that not sound like the trust believes that it was being considered differently from other projects?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. It sounds like a couple of things: firstly, concern that Nick Smith had an awful lot on his plate, which he did because he was a very busy Minister at the time; and, secondly, a genuine view from the Minister that he thought the right way to go was a collaborative approach—that that would be appropriate for that mechanism to be set up—and that possibly Community Environment Fund funding was the right way to actually fund that. I simply make this point: maybe Grant Robertson would like to go and ask Charles Chauvel what Charles Chauvel said—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. Order!

Grant Robertson: Why did his office not consider that there may be issues of concern about the treatment of a trust chaired by a National Party MP, when a Ministry for the Environment official said in an email dated Monday, 29 August 2011 that the registering of the trust on the society’s register was managed in quick time as a result of “a special favour request”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is nothing unusual about trying to establish a process to resolve an important issue. This issue was an issue of great concern. It had over 10,000 submissions. I simply say to the member: go and ask Charles Chauvel and see what he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference.

Grant Robertson: Does he accept that the funding of important and useful collaborative processes for dealing with environmental issues still needs to be subject to the proper processes and transparency?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and that is why the Community Environment Fund in the end was not used to fund the project, as the member should know. I simply say to the member go and ask Charles Chauvel what he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference.

Grant Robertson: Does he believe on the basis of the investigation of his office that the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust received the same treatment as other applicants for ministry funding, particularly in light of the Ministry for the Environment indicating in official documents that it had spent 200 hours of staff time on the trust application between March and October 2011?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The trust did not get funding from the Community Environment Fund. The trust ultimately got funding at the discretion of the Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment. There is no question that the Government believed that the collaborative approach was the right way to go. It was estimated to be a tenth of the cost of going through a litigious process. It is also true that the ministry thought that a better way to go was through the court, and the Government thought that spending $2.6 million to resolve something that could be approved through a collaborative process was the better way to go. And I simply say to the member go and ask Charles Chauvel what he said.

Grant Robertson: Why does the Prime Minister think that Ministry for the Environment officials raised serious concerns about the funding of the project?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There were people within the ministry who did not like the collaborative approach and wanted to go to court—they wanted to go to court. They are welcome to their view, but we do not listen to every official’s view. And not so long ago I remember being in this House and hearing Helen Clark say she did not get any ideas from officials; she got them from the Guardian. I say to the member go and ask Charles Chauvel what he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table three documents. The first of those is an email from a Ministry for the Environment official, dated Monday, 29 August 2011, that says that the societies register application of the trust was processed as a result of a special favour request.

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.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table an email from Guy Salmon, dated Tuesday, 6 September 2011, to Jacqui Dean, in which he seeks to pre-empt the outcome of the community environment fund process.

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.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a time line developed by the Ministry for the Environment on funding of the trust, which includes the statement that the funds management team alone estimates that between March and October 2011 it spent an estimated 200 hours working on funding of the trust.

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.

Child Abuse and Neglect—Government Measures to Address

5. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What initiatives has the Government put in place to better protect children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Protecting children from abuse and neglect is and has been a major priority for this Government. We have introduced a number of significant initiatives that are making a real difference. Just in the last few months, for example, we have announced the first roll-out of extra social workers in schools, and 96 more Child, Youth and Family social workers on the front line. The “failure to protect” amendment to the Crimes Act has come into effect, and the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill is progressing through the House.

Melissa Lee: How is the Government supporting professionals working with children to recognise and respond to signs of child abuse and neglect?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As part of our initiatives to better protect children, we funded NGO Child Matters to run 1-day workshops around New Zealand, providing training to health, education, and social service professionals to identify signs of child abuse. To date it has delivered over 96 workshops reaching over 2,700 professionals.

Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm that her answers to written questions are correct, and that the number of child protection cases that Child, Youth and Family has deemed serious enough to prompt further action has increased over the past 4 years by 42 percent to almost 58,000 cases, yet the number of social workers in reality has increased only by 50?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I said, we recently made announcements of those 50, and we have got 96 who will be there overall. Yes, notifications have increased. Also, though, if you like, the false positives—so the number of notifications we get—

Jacinda Ardern: That’s further action required.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am just saying also those ones that we do not have to follow up. Over the last 8 years, from memory—I do not have the number in front of me—notifications have actually increased by about 400 percent overall.

Melissa Lee: What reports has she received that support the Government’s focus on protecting children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I welcome the coroner’s recommendations, which validate the initiatives we have already introduced and the work we are currently doing as part of the white paper on vulnerable children. None of the recommendations come as a surprise, as they have been raised in previous inquiries and in submissions on the green paper. A response will be coming forthwith.

Government Financial Position—Effect on Transport Projects

6. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government still intend to achieve a budget surplus by 2014/15; if so, how?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes; we want to achieve this by keeping firm control on the Government’s costs, which we believe is the situation at the moment. Budget forecasts show that the tax revenue, which is inclined to be more volatile, is on track for surplus in 2014-15.

Andrew Williams: Are cutbacks to major Government roading programmes such as the Ōtaki to Levin expressway—which was scrapped in favour of upgrading the existing highway, with the sudden saving of $300 million—now the only hope the Government has of getting anywhere near the target of a Budget surplus in 2014-15; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Andrew Williams: Can the Minister confirm that scrapping the four-lane expressway from Ōtaki to Levin will not be the first of a series of cutbacks to roading programmes in order to achieve a Budget surplus in the 2014-15 year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, if the member wants to debate the details of what decisions have actually been made about the Ōtaki to Levin highway, then he could direct those questions more properly to the Minister of Transport. But what I have put out to the Minister is that decisions about roading are made on their own merits. They are not made in the context of the need for the Government to find money for the 2014-15 surplus.

Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In that last question I specifically asked whether it would be the first of a series of cutbacks to the roading programme. So I asked for an assurance that it would not be the start of a series—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister, in answering the question, said that each decision on one of the roading programmes is made on its own merits, so there is no pattern. His answer made it very clear that this was not the first of anything; each decision is made on its own merits. I think he did answer the question.

Oil and Gas Extraction—Hydraulic Fracturing in Taranaki

7. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement on the Campbell Live 9 February programme on fracking that, “In Taranaki, it’s actually been done very, very well. There’s been no effect on the environment whatsoever”?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources): In context, yes; obviously, everything has an environmental effect. I am interested in environmental effects that are significant. As I understand it, the Taranaki Regional Council stands by its position. There have been no significant environmental effects caused by hydraulic fracturing in Taranaki.

Gareth Hughes: Is groundwater contamination at four Kapuni fracking sites, which has left water there unfit for potable water or stock use, an example of fracking that has been done very, very well?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Well, the statement is incorrect. In the past, some pits were used to receive fluids from fracked wells. However, I am advised that the fluid returns were highly unlikely to be the source. The monitoring undertaken shows this is a legacy issue. It happened in the past. It is highly unlikely to be associated with hydraulic fracturing, according to the Taranaki Regional Council, the only independent body in this debate.

Gareth Hughes: Is the common use of flare pits in Taranaki an example of fracking being done very, very well, or is it—as Alex Ferguson, the chief executive officer of Apache Corporation reportedly called it—abhorrent, noting that his fracking company would not use flare pits on the East Coast?

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I tērā wiki i kōrero au ki te Whare kia aro nui ki te āhuatanga o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Kua rongo ake a “O-tacky”, kua rongo ake a “Tarra-nacky”. Ko tāku īnoi kia tika rā nō te whakahua o ngā īngoa Māori i tēnei wiki mō Te Reo Māori. Ko te ingoa e tika ana, ko Ōtaki, i tēnei wā ko Taranaki. Kia ora tātau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. Last week I said to the House that it should pay attention to the situation that relates to Māori Language Week. I have just heard “O-tacky” and “Tarra-nacky”. My plea is that the pronunciation of Māori names must be correct in this week for the Māori language. The proper name is Ōtaki and at this point in time it is Taranaki. Greetings to us.]

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the goodwill in the member’s point of order. It is not strictly a point of order, but under the circumstances I think his point is well made. Where did we get to? The honourable Minister is to answer. Does the Minister remember the question asked?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am happy to answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Phil Heatley.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: A number of groups have views on this practice and, indeed, on oil and gas exploration. Unfortunately, on the far right they want to bring out the bulldozers. We, as a party, are saying no. We want to be environmentally sensible and be safe. On the left side, they want to do nothing—that is, the Green Party. Fortunately, we in the National Party—and the Labour Party, which promoted deep-sea oil and gas exploration for 9 years—are sitting in the middle. We are taking a sensible approach.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a clear question. It was not about what other people think about it; it was about what the Minister, who is meant to be regulating, thinks about flare pits in Taranaki. Is fracking very, very good, or is it abhorrent?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I hope the member is quite finished. The Minister explained how he saw those issues. He said that the Government is in the middle on those issues. That did not seem to be an unreasonable way to answer the question. I accept it may not have been exactly the answer the member was seeking, but it was not an unreasonable answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether, in order to avoid some of the problems highlighted by Mr Flavell, “Kia ora Catherine” could translate for the member asking the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has got me totally whacked there.

Jonathan Young: What reports has he seen of the Taranaki Regional Council’s response to allegations in relation to fracking in Taranaki?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Well, I have seen a letter written by the chief executive of the Taranaki Regional Council in May to the Taranaki Daily News that states this: “One of Mr Hughes’ statements is an exaggeration going far beyond the facts as they stand, and the other two of his statements defy the facts altogether … An informed and considered public discussion of the pros and cons of hydraulic fracturing deserves better than this. The public has the right to expect integrity in such discussions.”

Gareth Hughes: In that context, does the Minister stand by his statement made to the Press that he has full confidence in the ability of the council to manage fracking, when, in the context of that report it was disclosed that the Taranaki Regional Council was not even aware of 11 fracking well sites, and had to be alerted to them by the Ministry of Economic Development?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: No. I am very proud that the ministry has a handle on what is occurring out there. I believe that the Taranaki Regional Council has the most experience in New Zealand in terms of managing this practice. I hope that its experience can be passed on to other councils across the country. However, if the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment comes back and says that there are ways that we can improve the practice, I would expect the Taranaki Regional Council and other regional councils across the country to take heed of that. I look forward to her report.

Gareth Hughes: How can the Minister keep saying that fracking is being done very, very well, when we have seen groundwater contamination, we have seen abhorrent flaring practices, and we have got a council that cannot even keep track of where the fracking wells are?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: We have addressed the issues that he has raised except the water contamination issue. The Taranaki Regional Council asked Hill Laboratories to do water-quality tests on areas that were alleged to have been affected by fracking. It did this on the Cheal sites. Interestingly, the water was contaminated. It recorded that faecal coliforms were in the liquid, from paddock runoff. I am advised that the Taranaki Regional Council’s monitoring of water quality is ongoing. So on one side the Greens are quite correct: there was water contamination. What they do not tell the general public is that the scientists are saying it is faecal coliforms.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a long answer, but the Minister is referring to a report. The Minister knows that it is a very specific well, and he did not even answer the question around the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot seriously expect the Speaker to intervene on the basis of the supplementary question that he asked. It was a pretty loaded supplementary question expressing the member’s view—making the member’s view pretty clear—and there is no way we can tie a Minister down to a particular answer, given the nature of that question.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table the Ngaere water study by Hill Laboratories on behalf of the Taranaki Regional Council, and I also seek leave to table its covering information statement from its website, which shows that the report the Minister referenced was about one well site, not the 30-plus—

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

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

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I seek leave to table a letter from the only independent authority in this debate, the Taranaki Regional Council, with its not-so-flattering comments about Gareth Hughes’ representation—

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

Child Health—Improved Services

8. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made in providing improved child health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The Government has made strong progress in improving health services for children. Immunisation is now at a record level of 93 percent for 2-year-olds. There are free doctors’ visits for children under 6, day and night, 7 days a week, and a $24 million programme to address rheumatic fever, and we have rescued the B4 School checks programme, which has seen almost 140,000 children being given free health and development checks before they start school. The Government’s policies are not so much about closing the gaps as lifting for all, especially those most in need, and this is well demonstrated by the immunisation success story. While the immunisation rate for our children has lifted, the increase in the immunisation rate for Māori has lifted much greater, from 73 percent to 92 percent, and for children of Pacific Island ethnicity, from 80 percent to an unprecedented 97 percent. In terms of income—this is very interesting—the poorest income groups have exactly the same immunisation rate as the wealthiest groups: 94 percent.

Dr Jian Yang: What progress has been made with the new programme to reduce rheumatic fever, a Third World disease particularly prevalent in Māori and Pacific Island communities?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think the first point I need to make is that rheumatic fever can develop into a life-threatening heart disease and have the patient on 10 years of monthly penicillin injections. But this very serious Third World disease can be prevented, and it is one of the National-led Government’s key result areas to reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever by two-thirds by 2017. What I can announce today is that the largest initiative ever in South Auckland to deal with rheumatic fever will be launched on Friday. It is going to be opening at the Rongomai School in Ōtara, which will be the first of 18 school-based clinics in South Auckland. Clinics will open in Manurewa, Māngere, and Papakura schools. The clinics will check throats and skin infections, provide antibiotics, and provide access to services for healthy housing and injury prevention—a great achievement for New Zealand.

Barbara Stewart: What action is he taking to ensure that all rural areas, including Invercargill and Lumsden, have access to free after-hours urgent health-care for children under 6?

Hon TONY RYALL: As the member will know, the scheme is not compulsory, and the district health boards are negotiating that with various localities. We are currently at just over 90 percent of the country providing that access. That is a tremendous achievement for free after-hours health-care for under-sixes, and I look to progress in the southern region with those particular communities in the next while.

New Zealand - Australia Migration—18 to 30 Age Range

9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so, how many of the 158,167 people that have migrated to Australia since November 2008, as reported by Statistics NZ, are from 18 to 30 years of age in number and percentage terms?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Since November 2008, 61,937 people aged 18 to 30—about 39 percent of the total. Yes, I do stand by my statement, because I think it is important New Zealand gets on with expanding industries, supporting businesses, and creating jobs, so that those young people feel like they have more choices in a country going ahead, not one that is spending and borrowing more than it can afford.

Hon David Parker: How can New Zealand prosper when so many of our youngest and brightest are choosing to work in Australia rather than contribute to New Zealand’s economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand can prosper if, for instance, the Opposition supports the Government’s push to expand our oil and gas and minerals industries—exactly the industries that those young New Zealanders are going to work in in Australia. So if it is good enough for them to stay here, it is good enough for us to have those kinds of jobs for them.

Hon David Parker: When will he acknowledge that too many young New Zealanders are leaving because under his Government they lack hope and opportunity in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not accept that. The fact is in recent years the Australian economy has had higher growth rates than New Zealand’s. The migration flows between the two countries have generally correlated with those growth rates. The New Zealand Government is pushing to accelerate our growth rate in part by expanding the kind of industry that has been at the core of Australia’s success, and that is its resource-based industries, where those young New Zealanders are going to get those jobs. Why can we not have them in those jobs here?

Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree that the Canterbury rebuild offers opportunities for young Kiwis to stay and work in New Zealand; if so, how does the Government’s record of spending a paltry $8 million on post-earthquake skills training in Canterbury, out of a total of $42 million allocated, help young Kiwis get the skills needed to fill those jobs and stay in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think there are two parts to that answer. In the first place, the Government looks to be heading to spend somewhere around $13 billion to $14 billion in Christchurch, and that will provide lots of jobs for young New Zealanders. Secondly, in respect of training places, there are more training places available than there are young New Zealanders willing and able to take them up, and we expect to maintain that situation for some time yet.

Hon David Parker: Given that National campaigned so vociferously on reducing the brain drain to Australia, why do his targets by which he can be held to account not include any target or milestone for closing the wage gap with Australia, nor for decreasing the number of New Zealanders moving from New Zealand to Australia?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The number of New Zealanders going to Australia can be measured every day. The one way to stem that flow is to support businesses that make the decisions to invest more and employ another person. That is why so many New Zealanders did not vote for the Labour Party in the last election—because they know that it does not take that approach.

Hon David Parker: Is he proud that the Statistics New Zealand figures show that National’s policies are turning Generation Y into “Generation Oz”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is not what the figures show. I am very proud that National’s policies are turning round and repairing the damage done by the last Government to this economy, and are building a brighter future for thousands of young New Zealanders.

Business Research and Development—Advanced Technology Institute

10. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How will the Advanced Technology Institute boost business-led research and development?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): The Advanced Technology Institute is designed to be a one-stop shop for businesses’ research and development needs. It will support firms at different stages of development, from start-ups to established research and development performers, to innovate in response to domestic and international market opportunities. The Advanced Technology Institute will consolidate services that were previously only available across a number of entities, if at all. These include services such as product testing analysis and certification, research and development work, access to business research and development funding, commercialisation assistance, and intellectual property advice. The Advanced Technology Institute will also broker connections for businesses with the specialised expertise, equipment, and facilities they need to develop new or better products or services, whether located within New Zealand or further afield.

Colin King: How does the establishment of the Advanced Technology Institute and the Government’s commitment to science and innovation compare with the previous Government’s spending on research and development?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually we have made tremendous progress given tight financial conditions. Total Government spending on research and innovation funding has increased dramatically since 2007-08. In fact, funding has increased 46 percent in that period, from $848 million to $1,241 million in 2012-13. We have also managed to increase the share of business-led research and development expenditure from just 8 percent of the total in 2009-10 to an estimated nearly 20 percent in 2012-13. Combined with these funding increases, the creation of the Advanced Technology Institute will help better link business and science and help create new, high-tech products and services, which are crucial to help New Zealand grow faster.

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Minister—Use of Powers

11. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why did he use section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to amend the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement instead of using the Order in Council provisions of the Act or developing the recovery strategy or a recovery plan?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I inserted chapter 12A into the regional policy statement to ensure that there was enough easily consentable land for new subdivisions in the Greater Christchurch area. I did so with the encouragement of, and in consultation with, local authorities. Section 27 was seen as the quickest way to ensure delivery of new residential sections on safe ground for the many people in Christchurch affected by New Zealand’s largest natural disaster. I am passionate about effecting as fast as possible a recovery for people in the Greater Christchurch area. I note that the judge said that he believed I had acted in good faith. I am pleased that the decision has left in place the new subdivisions that were fast-tracked by my decision. I will now consider fully what the judge’s decision means and what implications it has.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does he stand by his statement that the powers under the legislation are “essentially reserve powers and there will be checks and balances on the use of these powers so the public can have confidence they are being used wisely and with restraint.”, and why did the court not think that he was using them wisely and with restraint when he acted outside the powers of the legislation?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is the current judgment and I accept that. However, there is going to be some consideration of exactly what that judgment means. What I would say is that there was a need for new subdivisions to be enacted in Canterbury quickly. Even the member herself was calling for that at a number of points, as were some of her colleagues. The urban development strategy, on which the change was based, was created through a very long consultation process that dated back to 2004. During that time there were numerous community consultations undertaken by the strategy partners and there were some 3,250 submissions on growth management options for the Greater Christchurch area. That resulted in plan change 1, which was promulgated in 2007. There were around some 700 submissions lodged in response to that, and there were hearings held throughout 2009. The matter was then taken to the Environment Court, and that is where it was stuck at the time of the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. I worked after that very closely with the elected representatives to try to come up with a solution that did not mean that we were cherry-picking, through the Government legislation, exactly which subdivisions went where. We chose a solution that the community itself had chosen. The judge has said that we used the wrong provision. I cannot challenge that and I wish to say no further about that, but I would note that there are thousands of sections available now that would not have been available under any other process.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Minister agree that the court upheld the judicial review because the Minister had chosen an option that had none of the checks and balances that he had told the people of New Zealand would be in place?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think my answer to the previous question absolutely rejects that proposition. The fact is that I did not accept the lobbying of individual property owners. I did not accept the offers of individual property owners. Instead I accepted—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not interject or take a point of order during the very lengthy answer that we had before. The specific question that I asked was whether the reason for the court’s decision was the lack of checks and balances that he had said would be in place.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the goodwill in the member’s point of order, but in the Minister’s answer I think he is being very careful not to comment on the legal implications of a judicial decision. It is not for a Minister to second-guess why a judge may have made a decision the judge has made. I think the Minister is trying to be very careful not to comment on the judge’s decision, not to offer reasons why the judge may or may not have made the decision made. That is why I allowed the Minister somewhat more latitude, and I am sure the experienced member would know that the Minister has to be very careful in that regard. I see it being quite difficult for the Minister to try to answer too precisely what the member has asked. Has the Hon Gerry Brownlee finished the answer?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I think so.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Minister recall identifying the checks and balances that he said would be in place and from which the public could take comfort: the four-person independent review panel, the cross-party forum, the forum of community leaders, appeal rights, and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority being subject to the Official Information Act? And can he confirm that, in fact, none of those particular checks and balances were in play when he made his decision?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If one was to dissect the Act and the various reasons for the powers, then all of those things would be true. But section 27 stands on its own and we believed that it was quite appropriate to move things in a rapid way. One of the extraordinary things I will point to in the judgment—and I make no comment on it—is that the judge has said that he felt that the decision was about matters that had existed prior to the earthquake event and would endure beyond the earthquake event, and therefore the recovery powers were inappropriate. Matters that were in place prior to the earthquake event were the faults underneath Christchurch, and, secondly, we would hope that all the decision made by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, in conjunction with local authorities, Ngāi Tahu, and other individual partners, do endure beyond this earthquake event. The judge has ruled that we used the wrong provisions under the Act.

Biosecurity Management—Government Initiatives

12. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made to further improve New Zealand’s biosecurity system?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries): On Friday I announced that 11 new biosecurity detector dogs would join the front line this year. This is a 42 percent increase in the number of detector dogs active at our border. Detector dogs and their handlers are another important part of our biosecurity system’s front line. The dogs’ visual presence at the airport is a big factor, and they are great at detecting seeds and plants that X-rays may miss.

Shane Ardern: What additional improvements is the Minister making to New Zealand’s biosecurity system?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I strongly believe that New Zealand’s biosecurity system is the best in the world, and that the Ministry for Primary Industries does an outstanding job. Having said that, neither I nor the Ministry for Primary Industries are content with simply maintaining this world-leading system. We are continually looking to make improvements, and they include such things as adding 40 additional jobs to the biosecurity front line in Auckland and Wellington next month, progressing the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill through the House, and progressing a number of Government-industry agreements. That is why biosecurity expenditure in the last year was the highest that it has been in the last decade, and almost double what it was in 2001.

Richard Prosser: Does he agree with the findings of the Sapere Research Group report into the outbreak of Psa in New Zealand that the lack of consistency in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff’s individualised approaches led to “reactive and fragmented assessment of the risks of Psa across individual pathways”; if so, what action will he take to ensure there is greater cohesion between Ministry for Primary Industries staff in order to mitigate future risks?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Action has already been taken accepting the recommendations of that report. What it clearly demonstrated to me is that there does need to be substantially better engagement between industry and the Ministry for Primary Industries if we are to get the best possible outcomes for the biosecurity system. What Psa showed is that there were changing circumstances and that information was never fed to the people it should have been fed to at the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I seek leave under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation in respect of a reference to me earlier in question time by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: The Prime Minister referred to comments that I made at a conference of the Environmental Defence Society some years ago, where I expressed a preference, in general terms, for collaborative dispute resolution procedures over litigation. I stand by those comments, but, obviously, they were made without any knowledge of the funding structure for the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, its membership, the involvement of Ministers or members in that trust, or the view taken by officials of the appropriateness of those arrangements.

Urgent Debates Declined

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Minister—Judicial Decision Regarding Use of Powers

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the High Court ruling that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery stepped outside the legal limits of his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 in making his decision to amend the 1998 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. The manner in which the Minister exercises his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act is undoubtedly an important issue for the House because of the considerable nature of the powers the Act grants.

However, for there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The Minister’s decisions were yesterday set aside by the High Court, and an application for a judicial review granted. There is no ministerial responsibility for a decision of the High Court. The urgent debate procedure is a way of holding the Government to account for matters of recent occurrence. There can be no particular case of recent occurrence in the absence of any further decision by the Minister, which, in all probability, may not be forthcoming until the outcome of the judicial review is known. The application is therefore declined.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am actually seeking your assistance on this, because I am a little unclear. There have been instances where snap debates have been given in the House as a result of a decision of a court. In this particular case, it is a judicial review of a Minister’s decision. The Minister made the decision last year and would not be making another decision in response to the court’s decision, because the court’s decision did not allow aspects of it to be overturned. So certain aspects of it, as I set out in my letter, have been allowed to continue, and they are the developments that are taking place in, I think, three of the particular subdivisions. So there is no need for the Minister to take another step.

The problem is that there was a lot of public controversy surrounding the very extensive powers in the legislation, and I think this Parliament does have a duty to oversee how the legislation is actually operating in practice. I think the Speaker will recall that there was considerable debate, certainly on this side of the House, as to whether we would agree to the legislation going through, which we did, but we feel that the scrutiny is required. So that is why I have put forward the letter.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to risk the contribution to a debate by a point of order. But the member herself has pointed out that the court has made a certain decision to set aside something, and there is no ministerial decision at the moment. If the Minister had made an immediate decision in response to that, then there would have been, indeed, perhaps a matter for the House to debate urgently. But the court has made a decision simply to set aside a decision of the Minister. The Minister, or the Minister on behalf of the Government, has made no response whatsoever to that, and therefore there is no matter of recent occurrence for this House to have an urgent debate on. That is why the Speaker’s decision is made the way it is.

The member may well be right that there may well be interest in the ongoing powers that the particular Act conferred on the Minister, but that is a matter for debate under normal opportunities when the House has a chance to debate matters. It is not something that requires the House to set aside its business today. And that is the test. The member is asking that the House set aside its business today so that this particular debate can be held. That is a high test that is required, and it sometimes is met, indeed, by the urgency of a matter where there is ministerial responsibility. But in this case there is no particular urgency, because the Government has not actually made any decision that complies with the requirement for it to be a case of recent occurrence.

General Debate

General Debate

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Kiwis have got a good idea of what a fair go means—an attachment to the idea that no matter where you come from, no matter what your background, you will get the chance and the opportunity to get ahead and achieve your potential. But with this Government it is clearly not what you know; it is who you know. If we look at the front bench of the National Government it is definitely not what they know—we can see that from over here—but it is who they know. This is a Government governing in the interests of the few—the wealthy few.

Let us just take asset sales as one example. It is a huge transfer of wealth from the vast bulk of the population of New Zealand to those who can afford to pay—to those who have got the $1,000. It is a transfer from the panel beater in Waitakere—“Waitakere man”, if you like, or “Waitakere woman”—who has a stake in those assets today. That is being taken away by this National Government and handed to the share traders of Parnell. But, more than that, the loyalty scheme that is now in place means that the panel beater pays twice, because they are funding the costs of transferring the shares to the New Zealanders who can afford them. This process will widen the gap between the rich and the poor, which is something that this Government has no compunction about doing.

We all know that the beneficiaries of the asset sale programme are the banks and the consultants who are raking in millions of dollars to sell off what New Zealanders have built up over generations. They are the same consultants and contractors who are milking the public sector purse for all it is worth, because this Government thinks that the best way to say whether the public sector is working is to work out what the headcount is. Well, the Government departments are responding. They are reducing the headcount all right, and the money is going straight to consultants and contractors. It is spiralling out of control.

The National Government seems to have got its messages confused. When New Zealanders say they like the idea of looking out for their mates, they do not mean the National Government lining the pockets of its friends at the expense of hard-working men and women across New Zealand. Then, in a zero Budget, somehow or other the Government finds $40 million for private training establishments. Funding cuts in education, bigger class sizes, no allowances for postgraduate students, but $40 million for private education.

National says it wants to crack down on welfare. Well, how about starting with a crackdown on corporate welfare? This Government is governing in the interests of the few, and not the many. The stench of cronyism that pervades this Government is as strong as the smell of the brakes on Hekia Parata’s tyres as she reversed on class sizes.

Conflict of interest and cronyism is a long roll-call in this Government. Stephen McElrea, the Prime Minister’s electorate chair, who is on the board of New Zealand On Air, was interfering in decisions about programming straight before an election. There was a loan to MediaWorks from Steven Joyce, the man who knows a lot about that company—$43 million in that company just happens to allow DJ Key to spin his discs just before the election. Then we have got the appointment of Katherine Rich to the Health Promotion Agency. Katherine Rich is a highly capable person, but she has another job. She runs the Food and Grocery Council.

But it is more than that. There are two other members of the Health Promotion Agency, Lee Mathias and Jamie Simpson, who are, respectively, the electorate chairs of Sam Lotu-Iiga and Gerry Brownlee. You may well ask what qualification Gerry Brownlee’s electorate chair has to be on the Health Promotion Agency. Well, I can tell you what it is. He is an insurance broker. That is the qualification that he has got. It is jobs for the boys. We can go on. There is the ACC and Bronwyn Pullar saga, and the Skycity and pokies for legislation deal. This Government is full of cronyistic deals and conflicts of interest.

A key player in the ACC saga was Nick Smith, who now finds himself right in the middle of the latest bout of cronyism and conflicts of interest—the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust. Let me say for the record that I want to acknowledge the great work of the many community groups that have been involved in the collaborative process down there. My concerns are not about them. My concerns are about a trust, launched at the National Party Bluegreens conference, chaired by a National MP, and directly funded by a National Minister, and about what that funding says about the transparency and accountability of this Government.

The Prime Minister wants to sweep this under the carpet. For him, the ends justify the means, no matter what. But our reputation as a country with a transparent Public Service must be jealously guarded.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I found the allegations of cronyism a bit rich, especially at times where I seem to be a one-person employment agency for former Labour MPs. But I want to start by acknowledging and paying tribute to Margaret Mahy, one of our great literary figures, who died on Monday. Her books were translated into a dozen languages, and I am very pleased to see that Joy Cowley and other writers are planning an hour-long tribute to her at the Frankfurt Book Fair in October, where New Zealand will be the country of honour.

Last weekend I went to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in Wellington, which performed Wagner’s Valkyrie in honour of another great New Zealander, Lloyd Morrison. Nothing more exposes the inaccuracy of headlines that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra could be axed than the fact that I sat through 5½ hours of Wagner on a Sunday afternoon. Every New Zealander should support and be proud of this institution, although, as Michael Cullen said to me yesterday, there will always be some people—

Grant Robertson: Sir Michael.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —Sir Michael; I apologise—who say that orchestras are a waste of money and that there are some who say that the second violins should be abolished because they are an unnecessary duplication of services. I was very impressed by the singers at the concert, although the tenor could learn a thing or two from a certain member of this House, who I am not allowed to bring into the debate but whose musical virtuosity is known to and appreciated by us all, and I am not referring to Brendan Horan.

Last weekend we had a very successful National Party conference in Auckland. Spirits were high, and the protests were scant. Nothing makes left-wing protesters abandon their cause faster than light drizzle. The mood of the public was positive, and it is because this Government is getting things done for New Zealand. We are settling historical grievances with iwi, we are rebuilding Christchurch, we are improving infrastructure, we are paying down debt, and we are strengthening New Zealand’s capital markets. This will be a very busy 3 years for this Government, and we will deliver results for New Zealanders.

The Labour Party members have been very busy, as well, staring at their own navels. They have just finished a momentous review, not of how to grow the economy or make the tax system work better but of how much of a voting share Helen Kelly should have in picking potential Prime Ministers. I think they have settled on 20 percent. David Shearer has put in place a new organisational structure to cement his future as leader. Rather than plotting in the shadows and briefing TV3, Labour’s roll-call of leadership challengers will now have to write to the party’s governing board to initiate a spill, with the support of two-thirds of the caucus. Forward-thinking members like David Cunliffe will protest that his campaign website is a more 21st century way of signalling his intentions than old-fashioned letter writing, and Grant Robertson, that great internationalist currently temporarily resident in Wellington Central, probably thinks that a text from New York will suffice.

Mr Shearer is a traditionalist. He has consolidated his position. He stands on the brink of greatness, at the threshold of ensuring his tenure as the longest-serving Leader of the Opposition in Labour Party history. Mr Robertson will also reach another great milestone—perhaps not the one he was after—and will be remembered as the longest-serving deputy leader. Mr Shearer may justify the odds to be known as one of the great tacticians of New Zealand politics. He has quietly outmanoeuvred Mr Robertson, who has stacked the party’s headquarters and parliamentary offices with his loyalists. But Mr Shearer has changed the rules of the game. I do not mean to say that Mr Robertson will never make it to the top job; in fact, he has often struck me as—

Grant Robertson: He’s obsessed with me.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am not obsessed with him. He has often struck me as the Gordon Brown of New Zealand’s social democracy. And I am not suggesting that Mr Shearer and Mr Robertson are not close. A number of media profiles that accompanied their ascent to the Labour leadership noted their similarities. They are very much the Noel and Liam Gallagher of the Labour Party. But there is no oasis for the Labour Party; it is all desert.

Grant Robertson: What band are they from, Minister?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Oasis. As I said, there is no oasis for the Labour Party; it is all desert. It has been a week of triumph for Mr Shearer, out of the limelight, away from the glare of public attention, which he does leave to Mr Robertson. He has sorted out his legacy.

But how irrelevant it all seems when one compares that with the achievements of our great Prime Minister and his Government: on the one hand an inward-looking party, focusing on how to deal with party challengers, and on the other hand a party and a Government that are interested only in a brighter future for New Zealand.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Over the weekend Government Minister after Government Minister was rolled out at the National Party conference to attack the Greens. Either National members have nothing to say about their own economic achievement or they must be pretty scared of the support the Greens are getting, to have spent so much time at their conference attacking us—or maybe both are true. Although National likes to talk up its economic management, it has actually bungled its way through the past 4 years. Under its watch, debt has skyrocketed, and many New Zealanders have lost their jobs. National came into office with zero net Government debt, and it is now $40 billion—that is right, billion—in the hole. That is the biggest borrowing binge in New Zealand’s history.

We hear a lot of excuses from National about the difficult financial times, but what exactly has been National’s brilliant economic response? It decided to borrow $2 billion to give tax cuts to the rich, it is borrowing another $1.5 billion to subsidise polluters, and it is splurging $12 billion on economically irrational motorways. National oversaw 63,000 more Kiwis lose their jobs. Unemployment is increasing under National. National believes that GDP growth is the be-all and end-all, but it continually misses its Budget growth targets. Let us be clear about this: John Key has overseen the worst economic growth record in at least half a century.

What National is scared of is that the Green Party offers a serious alternative. Our smart Green economics plan is jobs rich, innovative, environmentally sustainable, New Zealand - owned, and long term. The UK’s biggest business lobby group, the Confederation of British Industry, has just released a report showing the billions of dollars that green growth can add to the economy. The director-general, John Cridland, said: “with the right policies in place, green business will be a major pillar of our future growth.” National certainly is not going for growth; its dirty, grey plan is jobs poor, derivative, environmentally destructive, foreign-owned, and short term.

John Key and Steven Joyce, who have ineptly stood by as 63,000 Kiwis have become unemployed, like to lecture us about the need for job-creating policies, but the truth—the fact—is that their policies have led to more unemployment, whereas our policies create more jobs than theirs. Investing in public transport is jobs rich. For every dollar invested in public transport, it creates twice as many jobs as every dollar spent on motorways. National is wasting $12 billion on uneconomic motorways that increase our dependency on imported oil and create very few jobs. The Greens will invest in a sustainable, smart transport system that gets us off our oil addiction and creates twice as many jobs as investing in motorways.

Sustainable, clean energy creates three times as many jobs—dollar for dollar—than investing in fossil fuels, which is this Government’s obsession. Not only is investing in sustainable energy the right thing to do for the climate and our future but it creates more jobs now. Twenty-thousand manufacturing jobs have disappeared under National, as the Reserve Bank’s myopic focus on inflation dooms us to a current account deficit. The Greens will grow the manufacturing sector by reforming monetary policy so that our manufacturers have a level playing field at home and overseas.

Bereft of ideas, National is selling assets to try to patch up its botched economic management. Its plan B is to deface our national parks and drill our oceans for fossil fuels. Mining employs just 5,500 people—that is it. You would have to increase the amount of mining fivefold just to replace the jobs that have been lost in manufacturing while this National Party has been in Government.

Tourism and agriculture employ 92,000 and 97,000 people, respectively. These industries depend on our “clean, green” brand and bring in nearly $40 billion in export revenue. The smart thing to do is to invest in these job-rich industries, rather than damage our brand to create a brief fossil fuel bonanza for foreign-owned companies. That is why the Greens back clean, sustainable farming, and why we back high-value, environmentally friendly tourism.

The truth is that National’s woeful record on jobs and job destruction is no accident. It is happy with high unemployment, because it helps drive wages down. The Greens will not put up with it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I intend raising a point of order myself. Before I call the next member I have allowed one Government member to read a speech in the general debate. Having been sucked into that, I had to allow a member of the Opposition to read a speech in the general debate. I am sorry for the rest of the speakers, but in the general debate this afternoon there will be no more read speeches. We have had enough of read speeches.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your anticipation was brilliant.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the review of the Standing Orders Committee I distinctly recall the discussion and the agreed version of the report that was subsequently released. Although there is a preference for non-read speeches, it was made clear that any member could make—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. The Speaker does not need a lecture on the Standing Orders Committee. The Speaker chaired it and remembers it very well. The exception is for highly technical speeches where Ministers are, for example, introducing a bill or delivering a speech on the second reading of a bill that may be a technical bill. But where a member is talking about party politics, the House does not have to suffer read speeches. Occasionally there is some merit where perhaps a very humorous speech has been written out to get the timing, and it can be quite amusing sometimes where a speech is carefully crafted. But speeches that just climb into party politics are neither necessarily carefully crafted nor need to be read by any member in this House, and we will not have any more this afternoon. The next speaker is the Hon Phil—

Dr Kennedy Graham: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I am still on my feet. I am warning the honourable member that this is a place for debate and we do not need to have speeches written outside of this House read in this House. Members are meant to come into this House and debate. This is the general debate. It is not a place to read positions of political parties; it is the general debate. The House deserves—unless, as I say, there are exceptional circumstances—for members to actually contribute to the general debate. That does not involve reading speeches. I stress that only the Speaker can raise this issue; members are not at liberty to raise points of order about their colleagues reading speeches.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect your individual recollection of what occurred in the Standing Orders Committee. That does not accord with my individual recollection of the discussion or the agreed consensus that emerged in the Standing Orders review. It is not the case that written speeches read out would be confined to ministerial speeches or technical speeches. There was some leeway given to individual judgment as to whether a speech would be read word for word or used by notes or given extempore. It was on that basis that the Green Party—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Maybe it might be of assistance to the member for me to read the report of the Standing Orders Committee on this matter.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Do it from memory.

Mr SPEAKER: I will not attempt to do it from memory. Reading of speeches: “We also wish to reiterate that, where possible, members should not read speeches. The reading of speeches was precluded until 1996, and we wish to reassert this rule as a convention, rather than through an explicit amendment to the Standing Orders to this effect. The House is a forum for debate, and proceedings are enlivened when members participate and engage with each other, perhaps with the use of speaking notes to aid the memory. However, no member, other than the Speaker, may interrupt the member who is speaking to suggest a breach of this convention, and the Speaker may allow speeches to be read in some circumstances. 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.”

I think that makes pretty clear what I have just put to the House, that the Speaker may accept the reading of speeches where there is technical material, detailed material, or occasionally where a very cleverly crafted speech is being delivered. I think all members can enjoy that from time to time. But a speech presenting a party’s position on political matters does not need to be read to this House, and I have said I acknowledge that the Hon Chris Finlayson read quite a carefully crafted speech, and on that basis there was no way I could have intervened in the case of the co-leader of the Green Party. I have allowed that to happen and all I am saying is that for the rest of the afternoon, unless I hear a particularly detailed matter being covered, I expect members to contribute to the general debate.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would recall the very first words you read out in that paragraph, which says “where possible”. This accorded an element of individual discretionary judgment to the MP. It was on that basis that the Green Party agreed to the report. If you are going to interpret that paragraph to accord to yourself total discretion as to whether an MP, in his or her individual judgment, may wish to make the most boring speech in the annals of this Parliament, that is not for the Speaker to determine. If you wish to do that then the Green Party will revise its view of that report and disassociate itself from it.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I do recall the debate that occurred at the Standing Orders Committee. Some of us would have preferred the wording to be tighter. In fact, some of us promoted having it in the Standing Order as it had been previously. It was, in the end, a consensus of the committee. The wording went through without dissent. It had the two exceptions: it was the technical exception for Ministers, especially on first reading was the discussion, and, secondly, for inexperienced members. That member fulfils neither of those requirements, and I, therefore, totally support the Speaker’s ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. I do not think we need to put further attention on this this afternoon. It is only for the good of the House that I raise the issue. I accept that I allowed one member to read his speech this afternoon, and that is why I wanted to make sure that on the other side of the House I did not preclude another member from reading his speech. But I want to encourage members for the rest of this general debate, which I would rather we got on with, to please enter into the spirit of the general debate.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to pursue it beyond this, and this will be my last comment on it, but that is not the understanding on which I participated in—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not going to debate this matter in the House now. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. We are not going to debate this matter in the House now. The Speaker rules on all matters in this House, and if the member does not have confidence in the Speaker, there are certain procedures to follow in that regard. But the Speaker has ruled that, consistent with the findings of the Standing Orders Committee, there are occasions when speeches can be read, indeed. In fact, I remember on a recent occasion the member reading a particularly detailed speech, following his attendance at an international conference. I did not intervene in that case, because there was a lot of detail the member wanted to convey to the House. That is a judgment of the Speaker. In all matters, the Speaker rules in this House.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources): It is very interesting what is coming from the Green Party in that view, because what it does is highlight the points I made this afternoon. I want to tell members what my mother told me. She said: “Phil, young Phil, when you tell the truth, you never have to remember what you said.” I say to the Green Party that when you tell the truth, you do not have to read your speeches. You do not have to gather your lines—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In saying “you do not have to do this”, and “you do not have to do that”, the member is referring to the Speaker. The member must use the appropriate part of speech, if he is going to attack another party.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I was quoting what my mother was saying to me, and she said: “Phil, when you”—Phil—“tell the truth, you don’t have to remember your lines. You don’t have to read your speeches. We don’t all have to stick to the same line.” The reality is that over at the Green Party they are way off beam when it comes to getting the facts out there.

There is something we love about Green Party members, and it is that they are untainted. They are holy, they are pure, and they are untainted. They are untainted by reality, they are untainted by experience, and they are untainted by the facts. I do not know why the Labour Party is so intent on climbing into bed with them. I find it interesting that the Labour Party and the Greens are so very much closer together.

The Labour Party said we could not clarify labour laws in order for The Hobbit films to be made in New Zealand. The Labour Party hates the hobbits. The Labour Party said we cannot upgrade roads of national significance. In fact, it said “We’re not going to upgrade the road north of Auckland to Whangarei.” It hates Whangarei people. The Labour Party said that foreigners cannot invest in New Zealand. The irony of that, of course, is that the Labour Party says it believes in ethnic diversity. It says “Will people of different ethnic backgrounds please vote for us—but do not spend your cash in New Zealand.” The Labour Party said we cannot deliver better public services with fewer bureaucrats. It said it is against irrigation in the South Island—and the Labour Party is against oil and gas exploration, as well.

I would like to present to the House this map here, because the Labour Party apparently is against the almost $1 billion in royalties and company taxes that we collect each year. This map here shows the areas in blue that we have recently released for block offers across New Zealand—the areas in blue. We are very proud of this. We hope exploration companies will come here, they will find another Māui gasfield, and New Zealand will be able to get a little bit of a boost to its local economy. What this map also tells you, as the Labour Party rails against oil and gas exploration, is that the areas in yellow are what the Labour Party released for exploration over the last decade. [Interruption] Over the last decade the Labour Party released those areas in yellow for exploration.

The reason why that is fascinating is that that great statesman of this House, whom we all love and know, said this at the time about the release of the Great South Basin area under Labour Party rule: “Assuming exploration success, the country stands to earn significant revenue from royalties and taxes flowing from this investment, and it will assist in ensuring security of energy supply.” That great statesman David Parker, the then Minister of Energy, was very enthusiastic about exploring in the Great South Basin. Do you know what? He did it naked. David Parker was naked, because there was no exclusive economic zone legislation in the Great South Basin when he promoted that—no regulation out there, at all. The Labour Party believed you could have oil and gas exploration in the Great South Basin without regulation. It turns its back on that now, because it wants to be greener than green.

Of course, the Labour Party also has forgotten about the Māui gasfield, and all it has done for 220,000 consumers in the North Island, with New Zealand - made gas. I do not know why the Labour Party is against such successes. I do not know why it does not support anything for this country.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I will just straighten my speech notes here, which have technical details on them. This Government believes it can contract out accountability. It has privatised corrections, it has privatised energy generation, and last week it pushed through a bill that is going to privatise many of our social welfare services—

David Bennett: What did Winston do?

TRACEY MARTIN: —and, what is worse, the Minister actually promises us there is even more. There is even more, Mr Bennett. Look forward to it. New Zealand First believes that the New Zealand public is actually starting to wake up to what the real agenda of this Government is. The aim of this Government is to keep its population in a state of apathy around the economy, with the continual references to “There is no alternative. We must do this.”, but at the same time it is going to privatise the State by stealth. We can see that in almost every piece of legislation that is coming through this House, but nowhere is it more disturbing than in the field of education.

I am talking about charter schools, and I am talking about the privatisation of the State education system, creating an industry for profit, not for our children, not for academic outcomes, and not for our communities. No, no, no—this is an industry for profit, and those two words prominently appear in the supply and confidence agreement between this Government and the ACT Party. At the moment it is called charter schools, but officials quite rightly pointed out in a Cabinet paper, way back in February, at the beginning of this year, that we already have charter schools here in New Zealand. Every single State school has a charter, so it has recommended that as early as possible the working group come up with another name. It has also recommended that a bit of money be put into actually promoting and putting a bit of spin on this, so that the New Zealand public think that it is a great idea that their hard-earned taxpayer education dollars are given to people who are going to make a profit off it.

The fact that the Government is going to drop the first two of these schools into South Auckland and Christchurch in its own disturbing little way makes it worse. So this name is up for grabs. We have got some names. We can all put them in a bucket. Let us put some forward and add them to those of the working party group. How about: “Fleece the Taxpayer of Their Education Dollar Schools”. How about that? Shall we chuck that into the pot, and see whether that—or, what do we say: “We run it up a flagpole and see if anybody salutes.” Is that how you say it, Mr Bennett? What about “Another of John Banks’ Stupid Ideas Schools”? How would that go? Shall we try that? We need to get another name, because we already have charter schools. Actually—

Hon Tau Henare: I think she needs to read it.

TRACEY MARTIN: None of this is written down, Mr Henare. Some of us actually can create it on the spot, Mr Henare. These are notes, Mr Henare.

If ever there was a sign that this was a stupid idea, surely it was the flashing sign above Mr John Banks’ head that this idea came out of an ACT Party meeting that was held in a telephone box. I mean, that is how many people basically voted for, and participated in, the ACT Party, yet this was the idea. Or was it? This is interesting; I want to quote here, and I will just consult my notes. I am quoting here: “At a meeting between Mr Banks and a group of education officials, Mr Banks was quoted as saying: ‘I have outsourced all thinking.’ ” Now, we would suggest—

David Bennett: You had to read that?

TRACEY MARTIN: I wanted to make sure I got it right, because it is hard to believe that somebody would say that. But we would suggest that Mr Banks actually outsourced his thinking some time before. We would suggest that it is a shame that Mr Banks did not outsource his memory, because it would be nice if somebody else could remember whose helicopter he was on. But he was referring to charter schools and the working group.

Mr Banks and Mr Key are attempting to sell this charter schools idea, as I said, to the New Zealand public as a silver bullet. This is the silver bullet for the tail end of our education system. As I say, they are going to pop it into South Auckland and into Christchurch. Mr Key has gone on record as saying: “This is to provide choice.” Choice! These are the same words the Bush administration used to actually stop central government investment into the American education system. There are some very interesting parallels, particularly as our Minister of Education seems to be going to the United States to do some professional development on it.

But I suggest that we might be being a bit unfair to Mr Banks and the ACT Party. Perhaps we are crediting them with an idea that actually was not theirs. Let us look at the employment of the Secretary for Education, Lesley Longstone. She was actually appointed in June 2011. That was well before the November election. That was well before any supply and confidence agreement, and she has actually been hired at $160,000 more than the person who had the job before her, Karen Sewell, a New Zealander. Her previous position was actually as a director-general of infrastructure and funding in the United Kingdom from September 2010, where she was responsible for delivering free schools. This is privatising, and it is wrong.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): At the risk of sounding sycophantic, I want to reflect on the National Party’s annual conference, and in particular—[Interruption] Never, never really, but I understand the risk. I want to talk about Phil Heatley’s speech to the party faithful at the conference in Auckland on Saturday, because I think that it was one of the best speeches I have heard one of our Ministers do, and, in particular, it was about the opportunities for oil and gas exploration in this country. He told the party faithful a story about a province in this country; a province that can successfully marry dairying, tourism, and oil and gas exploration completely comfortably, and has done so for decades. That province—

Hon Nathan Guy: Lucy Lawless would know that.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is right; Lucy Lawless would know exactly where that is, because that is the province of Taranaki and the city of New Plymouth. I think it stands out as the model for what can be done when environmental risks are managed and when there is a comfortable coalescence with all of those things—dairying, tourism, and oil and gas. The numbers around Taranaki are quite compelling. Where New Zealand’s GDP per capita is at around $46,000, Taranaki’s GDP per capita is at around $88,000. Oil and gas is a significant contributor to the increase over the national average.

There is another province in this great country of ours, and it has dairying, and it has great tourism, and it may—just may, subject to further exploration—have some fantastic oil and gas fields not far off its shores.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Canterbury?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is the province of Otago—close, Mr Brownlee, but not quite. In fact, though, it is at the south end of the Canterbury Basin, I think they call it.

I am particularly concerned to ensure that city leaders in Dunedin are unequivocal about their support, that as long as environmental risk can be managed, that resource should be exploited. So I was a little concerned to read in this morning’s Otago Daily Times that the Dunedin City Council, fracturing into two camps, has narrowly decided to join calls for a moratorium on fracking. Never mind that there is no fracking going on in Otago, never mind that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has not yet completed her inquiry into the risks of fracking, and certainly never mind that there was no community consultation before the council passed this motion. It is important, because I think, as a city leader, that it is time to stand up and say this: as long as the environmental risks can be managed, Dunedin must promote, must lead, and welcome the Anadarkos and the Shell Todds who have the exploration licences and head out off the shore at Karitane and down at Nugget Point, and explore those fields that Mr Heatley pointed out.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not Nugget Point!

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, Nugget Point; yes, marine reserve, that is right. It will be comfortably coalescing, I am sure, with the environment down there, and the tourism opportunities, and the dairying opportunities in South Otago. The three can coalesce, because the city actually contributed to a multi-party economic development strategy that said: “Dunedin will be one of the world’s great small cities. It will be known as a confident, competitive knowledge centre,”. It then goes on to talk about things like business vitality, a compelling destination, a magnet for skills and talent, and so on. When I was a child—

Dr David Clark: How about Hillside?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: When I was a child—I will come to that, Dr Clark—25 percent of the companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange had their head offices in Dunedin. In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a flight north and across the Tasman. That 25 percent—that is right, go and have a look at the numbers—the Donaghys, the Fisher and Paykels, the Shacklocks, and the McLeods all had their head offices in Dunedin. I cannot stand by and look the people of Dunedin in the eye and say that it is sad what has happened to Hillside, that they cannot compete with larger and more technologically adept companies internationally, and then turn round and say that we are equivocal about oil and gas exploration. I cannot do it. So I stand up today, and I say, as a city leader, that I support those companies coming in. They had expertise in mining, and deep-water mining in particular, and I think that this would be great for the city. I call on other leaders to do the same, and in particular, the Dunedin City Council.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I am very glad the National Party members are talking about their so-called glorious Nuremberg-like rally that happened on the weekend. The Prime Minister came out of that, triumphant in his own mind that the National Party faithful—of course, all of whom who could—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a completely unacceptable reference that was made by that member. He should be made to withdraw and apologise for it. You cannot use words that relate to that particular regime in this House in other contexts, and it should not be used in the context of this debate when it is reference to another party as well.

Mr SPEAKER: I think—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw and apologise if any offence was given. I just say this for the record: I think the member has got it completely wrong, but I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Had the member referred to something to do with a Nazi-style conference, that would have been out of order. I am loath to all the time keep ruling words out of order. I appreciate the member’s preparedness to withdraw it, but I think we have just got to be careful to not be ruling words out endlessly over the years.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is not the words; it is the reference he made.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should not be interjecting, although I understand the depth of feeling around some of these issues. The reference is made through words. I thank the member for withdrawing his comment, and let us let it lie at that. I appreciate that. I thank the member.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: With no link to that, I think the member has gone troppo, but we will not go there.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not helpful.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He had a bad day yesterday. We have it now in writing from a High Court judge confirming what everybody knows in Canterbury and around the place, that Gerry Brownlee is incompetent, and we now have the papers to prove it. But let us go back to the great rally of the National Party conference. Out of that came the Prime Minister, and he announced a loyalty scheme as part of one of the biggest wealth transfers in our history—which I suspect we will look back on it as—from those who cannot afford it to those who can. He came into this House with a loyalty scheme that is an admission of defeat, because if the Prime Minister felt, as he has trumpeted, as Gerry Brownlee has, and as all the National Party members have, that these shares in our assets will be retained almost ad infinitum in the future by ordinary Kiwi mums and dads, then the question remains why you need a loyalty scheme, and why that loyalty scheme will be paid on the back of all those who cannot afford the $1,000 to $2,000 parcels.

The Prime Minister then came into the House yesterday, from my memory—I note this for the press gallery, because when we would get up in the House from time to time when we were in Government, the press gallery, as were the then Opposition, were at pains to ask us to provide detail around costings and other things—he got up and was asked for detail around the loyalty scheme. Zero; he had not thought it through. He was asked for a costing around the loyalty scheme. Zero; he did not have the numbers. Then he decided to criticise this side of the House for references to an authoritative Treasury report, from his own Government department, but could not put a dollar figure on the costings, a dollar figure on the impact, no detail, and no reference at all. There are those in the media who would term that, perhaps, as “policy on the hoof”. That term, I think, is too light for this.

The Prime Minister on radio called me a fool for references I made around State-owned enterprises. Well, I say this to the Prime Minister: only a fool would swap revenue-generating assets making around 18 percent for debt-servicing costs of around 5 percent, and every Kiwi who can balance their housekeeping and make the budget work every day has worked that out. The fool is the Prime Minister. The fool is the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister has tried to say benevolently to people who already own the assets that they can buy those assets back for a second time—for a second time, because we know that they already own them. Then he said to them that those who do buy in, those who can afford $1,000 or $2,000—and if they can, ordinary Kiwis, I suspect, will pay off 20 percent of the credit card rather than invest in this—will get a loyalty bonus. Those who cannot afford it get nothing.

Then, of course, we have the issue of possible Māori tribal and iwi challenges. Yet the Prime Minister and his ilk go ahead, bludgeon this through—bludgeon an initial public offering through under the worst market conditions you can possibly have and under the potential threat of legal action. I ask how that will be resolved. That will be resolved, of course, in the tried and true way of the Prime Minister making a deal. I suspect that it will be resolved through a share allocation. So we have a bonus share allocation. Kiwis are so loyal that they do not need it, but the Prime Minister has thrown it in. By the way, that bonus matures—hey presto—in about 3 years’ time. When is that, colleagues? Just after the next election. I ask National, given that it has not made up its mind on much, whether it will guarantee that that bonus issue, that loyalty scheme, will mature prior to the next election—prior to the next election, say, in 2½ years’ time. That is a bribe and a con, designed simply so the Prime Minister can say that all Kiwis are in—until they get the windfall bonus in the lead-up to an election, and then we know Kiwis will be out, and foreign investors will be the ones who are in.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I am really interested in young people, and at a recent motivation event I heard the principle of “Be. Do. Get.” The principle behind that is the idea that intrinsically you are worth value, but unless you “do”, you do not get the results that you deserve. The National Government understands that all too well. Contrary to what Mr Cosgrove said, we are an intelligent Government, we are working hard, and we are action-packed. You will hear from my other colleagues the activities that we are involved in. But what we understand is that it is OK to be the Government, but you have to “do” if you want to get the future that New Zealanders need, want, and deserve.

As the MP for Christchurch Central, to me the most important commitment this Government has made is to support the rebuild and the recovery of Christchurch and Canterbury, and this Government is 100 percent behind that. Those of you who have visited Canterbury or Christchurch will know that we are totally focused on the earthquake recovery. In fact, I do not know what we did or what we talked about before the earthquakes. We worked together really well to manage the disaster, and we are working together well to manage the recovery. But things are still tough. There are still difficult, challenging issues out there, but we are making progress. We are focusing on fixing homes because we want everybody safe and warm. We have worked on resettling people who had totally damaged properties, and 5,000 of the 7,000-ish who have been in the red zone have now signed their documents and are ready to move on. We have also repaired 20,000 houses. That is a little bit bigger than the size of Timaru. There are still 30,000 houses in that process, but we have also put accommodation villages there so people can move out of their houses, move into that accommodation, and then move back into their houses when they are finished. The good news is that Fletcher EQR—that is, the earthquake recovery people—are telling us that they are completing 100 a day.

We are getting very good at demolition. We have demolished about 1,200 commercial buildings in the centre city, with another 200 to go. That might sound negative, but in actual fact it is really positive. You cannot rebuild until those buildings are down. And we are rebuilding fast, as well. The stadium was up in 100 days. The new out-patients department at Christchurch Hospital was up in 150 days. And our new library has just opened this week. So we are trying to fix communities. It is actually horrifying the number of public and community buildings that are being repaired or coming down. We are also fixing infrastructure: the roads, the pipes, the sewers—things that you cannot see too much, but things that are incredibly important. I have some statistics here: 41,000 square metres of roading, 1,500 kilometres of water network assessed, and 45 kilometres repaired. Overall, there are 200 projects going on in Christchurch worth over $920 million. So if you get the feeling that there are roadworks going on in every street in town, you are probably right.

But it is not just building infrastructure that is important; we also need to focus on the health and well-being of Cantabrians. I really want to congratulate the health professionals in Christchurch, who under very difficult circumstances with really broken facilities have delivered first-class health. What is more, they are now dealing with the normal winter ills in the city as well. In terms of well-being, I think Cantabrians are amazing. They are resilient, they are positive, and they are working hard to rebuild our city. Our economy is growing, new businesses are opening and old businesses reopening every day, unemployment is down, and there are people actually moving to Christchurch to be part of the rebuilding. We are very pleased with the local plans that are under way, and we are looking forward to the central Christchurch blueprint, which will be announced next Monday. I have absolutely no doubt that Cantabrians can and will rebuild a better, stronger, and more environmentally friendly and beautiful city. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It is very clear that this Government has a propensity to appoint its friends in order to advance its own interests. It does not matter whether it is Brian Neeson, Ken Shirley, Ravi Musuku, Georgina te Heuheu, Sir Wira Gardiner, Wayne Mapp, Jenny Shipley, Steven McElrea, Judy Kirk, Don Brash, Richard Griffin, or Richard Long, and I could go on with an assortment of former members of Parliament, electorate chairpeople, failed candidates for the National Party, or old staffers. This Government continues to appoint people it prefers in order to advance its own interests.

There is one particular appointment that I want to speak about with some real seriousness, because it goes to just what the Government is trying to achieve with its appointments. One of the people in the last manifestation of the National caucus whom I admired a great deal was Katherine Rich. She is a woman of ability and principle, and I admired her a great deal. She, in fact, led the National caucus on some issues, such as the section 59 debate, when she refused to be whipped and follow the party line, and made sure that we got better legislation than was in place. This is a person of principle, Katherine Rich, and she is the head of the Food and Grocery Council. So why has the Government appointed her to the Health Promotion Agency? There is clearly a conflict of interest.

The food and beverage industry is a $15 billion industry, and the Food and Grocery Council’s own objective is “To promote, oppose, or move for the recision of any legislation, regulations, by-laws, or policy affecting the interests of members.”, and I quote that from the objectives of the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council. My very great fear is that they have deliberately created this conflict of interest for a woman of ability because they wish to have some mitigating influence on the work of the Health Promotion Agency. What is the objective of the Health Promotion Agency? Well, the Health Promotion Agency, it says, “must lead and support activities for the following purposes: (a) promoting health and … encouraging health lifestyles: (b) preventing disease, illness, and injury: (c) enabling environments that support health and … healthy lifestyles:”. The Food and Grocery Council has campaigned against the mandatory inclusion of folic acid in bread, it has campaigned against the reduction of salt and sugar in food, and it has campaigned in favour of liberal trading policies for alcohol.

So my distinct suspicion is that this Government has cynically appointed this woman of ability so that it can mitigate messages that should come out of the Health Promotion Agency, so that nobody could ever accuse it of being nanny State, and so that it can reassure its friends in the food and grocery industry that it still has their interests at heart. “Do not worry, we will not let any of that namby-pamby health promotion stuff get away on us. We will make sure that we do not do anything that affects the sale of your sugary products, or your salt-laden products, or your products that do not inspire health or healthy living in any New Zealander.”

My very deep concern is that National’s cronyism not only sacrifices some of its best people but also is used in the interests of the industries that support it. In this particular case, its cronyism is used against the interests of the health and well-being of New Zealanders. This is one conflict of interest that this Government is using deliberately for its own purposes, and it needs to reflect seriously on that issue. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Today we were very privileged in this House to have the presence of the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, a man who has made a huge commitment to his country and is a leader of his region. He has, I guess, had to eat a few bitter pills in his time to actually deliver what he wants to see for his country going forward. But that is a true leader: somebody who knows what their country wants, who is willing to do what is needed for their country, and who has the presence and ability to deliver that over time. We wish him the best in those endeavours. Just like the New Zealand National Party is a party that has the best interests of New Zealand at heart, that is making the right choices for New Zealand, and that is willing and able to go through the tough times to make those choices a reality and to make this country good and great. We are lucky to have the leadership of this country in the hands of National at this time.

The Labour Party has no plan. It attacks personalities. That last speech from the Hon Maryan Street was very disappointing in the way that it tried to attack a personality, rather than to go and to look at the real future of New Zealand and to put a plan out there. It is very divisive politics that you see from the Opposition. It tries to prey on the fears of individuals, it tries to prey on those who are weak, and it tries to make something out of nothing so that it can actually go out there and be seen as the saviour of all when it is not the saviour at all. It is not the saviour. It does not believe in New Zealanders or in this country. It believes only in itself and in the grand conspiracy theories that you see from parties like the New Zealand First Party in this House this afternoon, whereas on the National Government side, we know what we need to do. We need to have a balanced economy; an economy that has the fundamentals right; an economy that invests in those very strong principles of education, infrastructure, and development—

Denis O’Rourke: An economy that widens the gap between rich and poor.

DAVID BENNETT: —an economy that looks after people in need; and an economy that delivers for all. And when we hear members across there trying to yell out things from the Opposition benches, they do not look at what is actually required for New Zealand. We hear this in regard to the mixed-ownership model. The Opposition and Grant Robertson started off today saying it is a transfer of wealth. That is what he is saying. Well, it is not a transfer of wealth. The people who will potentially buy those assets through the shareholdings are actually sending money to the Government for those shares. The Government will benefit from that investment; that investment then will be used to deliver more public services for all New Zealanders. If anything, the transfer of wealth is from those who are willing to invest, to the Government to deliver for all New Zealanders. That is what is really going to happen, rather than a transfer of wealth, as the Labour Party seeks to assert in this House.

I thought we had a very good speech today from Chris Finlayson, though. It was an excellent speech, and it followed his excellent debate at the National Party conference. He spoke about the change in how the leadership of the Labour Party is determined and said that it has inevitably meant that Mr Shearer has got a prolonged stage of leadership of the Labour Party, which is good news for National, and it is good news for New Zealand because Mr Shearer will not achieve his goal of being Prime Minister. That will mean that National has more opportunity at the next election with him as the Labour Party leader.

When you look at the Green Party, though, it is very disappointing what it is doing in this House and in the public eye. The Green Party should be a party that talks about the real issues. The Green Party is a party that should look at the truth and deliver that in this House. The Green Party does not do that. The Green Party is a party at odds with its coalition favourites, the Labour Party. They naturally will be at odds, because the Labour Party does not want to lose votes to the Greens and the Greens want to take votes off the Labour Party. That is a marriage that cannot last. There will be some divisive fighting between those two parties in the next 2 years as they fight over the same territory. The Labour Party has one advantage over the Green Party, and it is that it tells the truth more often than the Green Party—not that much more, but it does sometimes. That is one thing that the Green Party needs to invest in if it seriously wants votes.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. The speech from the last speaker, “Mr Ardern”, talked about telling the truth. I will tell the truth about what this Government is doing with our natural assets as well as our State-owned assets. Just as it is selling off our State-owned energy companies, the Government is selling off and trading away our natural assets, and I am talking to two particular proposals in Te Wāhipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area. It is Riverstone Holdings’ proposed monorail and Milford Dart’s proposed tunnel between Glenorchy and the Hollyford. I am very pleased the Minister of Conservation is here, because she recently received some of the concerns of the people of Te Ānau that that proposal for the tunnel would completely undermine tourism in the area. It would take people away from visiting Te Ānau.

These two proposals are proposed for one of our most distinctive and special natural areas: the wilds of Fiordland, of Snowdon Forest. They are both part of Te Wāhipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area. It is one of only 188 areas that are recognised by Unesco for their outstanding value to all humankind.

Earlier this year I walked through the Kiwi Burn and the Ūpukerora valleys, where the monorail is proposed to go. The trees and the forest in those valleys—it is red beech forest. There are some very beautiful trees; some very old trees that are potentially hundreds and hundreds of years old. The monorail would create a 200 metre wide, 30 kilometre long scar through the Snowdon Forest. By the Department of Conservation’s own estimates it would destroy 20,000 trees, which would have to be logged and cleared to create the corridor for the monorail.

Riverstone Holdings is targeting conservation land because, of course, it is much cheaper to socialise its costs by using public conservation land for free or for a modest concession, rather than buying private land for its proposed monorail. Yet the Department of Conservation is supposed to be managing these areas for the preservation and protection of the natural resources that are there. It is the habitat of threatened species like kākā, kākāriki, and the long-tailed bat, yet Riverstone Holdings proposes putting people in these sealed tin cans to send them swishing through the landscape. How will that increase their appreciation of what a New Zealand forest is like? By cutting the journey between Queenstown and Te Ānau and missing out that beautiful section round the lake, where the road is in the shadow of the Remarkables and you are looking out across Lake Wakatipu, how will that increase people’s appreciation of New Zealand?

It goes through an area that at the moment is perfect for families and novice trampers because it is close to the Mavora Lakes. Sensible tourism operators, people whom the Green Party supports and who are establishing the Save Fiordland Society, see that the future of that industry is based on getting people into the outdoors and encouraging them to see what nature is really like, not just to have them speeding through the landscape in a sealed tin can. Those operators are part of the Save Fiordland Society. Those people are banding together to mobilise public opinion against these two very destructive, high-impact proposals.

We have not had a good record from this Minister. She presided over the freeholding of part of what was to be part of Craigieburn Forest Park, and allowed it to be traded and sold off to the Porters Ski Area development. Mr Michael Slee, who was the director of development for the Porters Ski Area proposal, is also involved in the monorail proposal. Once they had their concessions from the Minister, what happened? Blackfish, which was involved in putting forward Porters Ski Area, was onsold to four Russian multimillionaires. Given the large amount of capital that is required for both the tunnel and the monorail, what would we see here? We would see overseas corporates that might benefit from the jobs and the consultancy contracts involved in constructing the monorail and the tunnel, but these would be overseas-owned companies destroying New Zealand nature in return for their dividends going offshore.

People are mobilising to stop these proposals in order to protect the outstanding values of the South West New Zealand World Heritage Area, because they recognise that this is conservation land.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am starting my contribution by greeting you in the Māori language, because this is the week when we are acknowledging the Māori language. If we want to keep our culture alive we need to stick to our language, and that is very important. English is not my first language, and you had a little debate today that debaters should not read their speeches. I read my speech because of this House’s prestige. I do not want to get stuck somewhere. That is why I prepare my notes, my thoughts, so that I can keep reading them. Mr Speaker, I hope you will excuse me if I read in between my speech some of my notes. I am not used to debating without my notes.

When we migrants come to this country, we bring a lot of dreams in mind. We have got a lot of energy for the hard work that we are ready to do, and we are sure we will succeed with the hard work and support of our families. I am proud to be part of this National Government, which provides the tools for businesses to grow in this country. Less red tape-ism, better infrastructure, and better facilities are the success tools for businesses to grow. I am sure everyone from the small and medium-sized businesses will agree with me that the National Government is supporting them.

I am proud of this National-led Government, which gave this country its first ethnic MP, Pansy Wong. I am also proud of this Government, which gave us Pansy Wong as the first Cabinet Minister from an ethnic background. I am proud to be part of this team and I hope this Government will keep on working in this direction.

I would like to quote Mahatma Gandhi, who said: “Men often become what they believe themselves to be. If I believe I cannot do something, it makes me incapable of doing it. But when I believe I can, then I acquire the ability to do it even if I didn’t have it in the beginning.” It is very important that the businesses, which are run with a lot of hard work and the support of the families, succeed over here. What every business that starts needs is a great idea to start with, resources and capital to succeed, a workforce that can help it to produce its production, and, lastly, infrastructure so that it can sell its product not only in this country but also overseas. The Government for its part is supporting facilities and multiple initiatives, because it is our sincere wish to see that everyone living in New Zealand should succeed.

We are also involved in a number of initiatives that facilitate the growth of ethnic businesses. The forums organised by the ethnic affairs ministry are directed to help them to succeed over here. The recent forum organised by the ethnic affairs ministry about the African community was very successful. There the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, the Hon Judith Collins, said that New Zealand’s African community brings with it a great deal of energy and experience to our shores, and we are able to use that experience and energy in the development of this country.

I feel that organising such events is a wonderful way to empower individuals and communities. It makes them feel welcome and says to them: “We are there to support you while you are integrating into New Zealand.” It provides migrants coming to New Zealand with a sense that now they belong to New Zealand, and their efforts towards building the New Zealand economy will be well supported.

I would like to finish by saying another quote by Mahatma Gandhi: “As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world … as being able to remake ourselves.” This, I believe, is the story of most migrants. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 27 June.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I certainly want to use my final 2 minutes for the purpose of recording that New Zealand First does support the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, and there are five reasons to do so.

One is the opportunity for observance by all employees, and that should be something that is primary in the consideration of the bill. Without the opportunity to observe these important days, we do not have a proper system of observance at all. The second reason relates to fairness. Some employees work on weekend days and some do not. It should be fair between them all. The third relates to consistency. There should be more consistency around which days you can Mondayise and which you cannot. Fourthly, we need to enhance the importance of these two days. And, fifthly, there is no real burden on the economy from doing so.

Finally, as a holiday can be granted in two out of seven years on average, there can be no burden on employers either.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): May I begin by saying that we on this side of the House are voting against the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I want to use the time I have available to actually explain to the other side what I seen as lacking.

There is, obviously, a lack of understanding on the other side of the House, on the Opposition benches, of the primary industries, which we are very fortunate to have. The effects of such legislation on the primary industries has been perverse for some time. The whole exercise and example around this can be illustrated well by looking at Anzac Day, should it fall on a weekend. There are many employers and employees who are involved in flexible working situations. I want to use one that is fairly close to my heart, and that is the wool industry. In regard to the shearing industry, it is not uncommon to be in a situation where workers these days are managing farms. When it comes down to actually trying to get some cohesion and coordination within a seasonal pressure situation, such events as are being proposed by this bill are nothing but cumbersome and obstructive.

An example is a farming business where the employer enforces the employees getting the sheep in ready for a Monday start or a Tuesday start. In the event of this bill, what happens? It is a Wednesday start. So there are costs. This is just one example. There is the other situation where there are very often wet seasonal situations. A situation comes down to its Friday and it has been raining for a week, then in the weekend it comes right. Nobody is going to start work on Sunday, because there is another holiday on Monday. Nobody starts work until Wednesday. We are talking about thousands of people who are affected by this situation. Weather-dependent situations do arise. Whether it is making of silage, making of hay, or putting in the critical winter crop, it is guided by a situation. We are not talking about 1 day or 2 days here; we are talking about 4 days, in effect. I have seen no indication of consideration of that from the other side of the House.

In effect, this sort of legislation also creates inequity around the business model that is operating at the time. It enables an owner-operator to carry on doing their thing, whereas an employer, who offers job security to employees, is totally put at disadvantage. What these sorts of bills do is actually create perverse incentives whereby the employer will put employees on subcontracting situations to be able to get round this situation.

You may say on the other side of the House that 88 percent of people come from urban areas and only 12 percent of people from rural areas. Well, that is not quite the case.

I can say with great pride that it never happened in my day—and thank goodness it did not—and it should not be happening today. When we look at work, the popular view is that a holiday is marvellous, but from my own personal experience a holiday with four children was a costly experience. When you look at the family situation today, it is quite clear that this bill is making a rather complex employment situation even more complex.

It is objectionable that people on the other side of the House, in Opposition, stand in the way of people who want to work. It is sort of consistent, when you stop and think about it, because the Opposition finds it better to give away productivity—better to give away those opportunities for New Zealand to get ahead. On the National Party side of things here, we are very proud of the work we have done to try to make sure that this economy grows and goes ahead.

Let us count some of those things. The complexity of this bill does not address the full situation. In the hospitality area, a lot of people have Mondays off. They work from Tuesday to Saturday and they will not be covered. So as far as this bill addressing an anomaly, all it does is create further complexity. Within the primary sector there are some huge problems around the complexity. Today, as in my day, when the sheep are dry or when the hay is ready to be made, that is when you should work. So I have no difficulty in opposing this bill.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): What an extraordinary speech from Colin King! I think somewhere in the middle of that speech he decided he did not like Christmas, he did not seem to particularly like children very much either, and he does not want people to have holidays. But the National Party, unfortunately, has a history—

Hon Nathan Guy: He’s got children.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, he has. That is right, Mr Guy—he has. And the point of that interjection is? The National Party has never liked the idea of workers getting holidays. It has never liked it. When legislation on 4 weeks’ annual leave came to this House the National Party members got up and they opposed it. Judith Collins said this during the debate on 4 weeks’ leave: “I do not have a lot of sympathy with anyone who wishes to be generous,”. That is what Judith Collins said when she got up in this House to debate 4 weeks’ annual leave. The sky did not fall in when the Labour-led Government introduced 4 weeks’ annual leave. In fact, people got to spend more time with their families, and they got to enjoy more time in their communities.

Holidays for workers are actually very important for productivity, and that is why businesses actually support this legislation, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. Businesses know that in 5 out of 7 years they will have to plan to give people time off for Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. It is not that difficult to turn that into 7 out of 7 years. That is what businesses are saying. Today in the House we have already heard that Martin Snedden from the Tourism Industry Association is saying that this is great—

Hon Trevor Mallard: A great New Zealander.

GRANT ROBERTSON: He is a great New Zealander who supports a great bill, because what he said is that this is going to be good for the economy. This is actually going to lead to more business on those days that people have a holiday.

But, ultimately, this bill is about a fair deal for families in New Zealand. The Holidays Act has 11 public holidays in it and in every year New Zealanders deserve a fair go to have those 11 public holidays. It is an anomaly that when Anzac Day and Waitangi Day fall on a weekend we do not create a holiday on a Monday. It happens for Christmas Day. We hear from people on the other side of the House that somehow or other this very good bill is diminishing the importance of Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. Far, far from it: Christmas Day, when it falls on a weekend, generates a holiday on a Monday. Has Christmas suddenly lost its importance in New Zealand? Absolutely not.

Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are important days in New Zealand’s history. They are an important part of our identity. This bill will enable New Zealanders to commemorate those days on the days they fall, on 6 February and 25 April, and it will give New Zealanders the days off every year—not just for 5 years in 7. That is a good thing. In Australia, where in most states this applies, attendance at Anzac Day services has been going up. People value the day, they value the importance of the day to our national identity, and they also enjoy the fact that they can have a day off with their families.

This bill has been a long time coming, and, as someone in whose name it formerly was, I can tell you that it is enormously popular with New Zealanders. New Zealanders understand that they deserve a fair deal. New Zealanders work hard. New Zealanders work harder than most people around the world, and that is a good thing. But New Zealanders deserve the 11 public holidays in the Holidays Act every year. This bill is a bill that the Labour Party is incredibly proud to bring to this House because it is about fairness for families. It is about a fair deal so that people can actually spend more time with their families. Why would National oppose a fair deal for families? Why would National say that workers do not deserve the 11 public holidays that they are guaranteed every year in the Holidays Act?

I believe that Waitangi Day and Anzac Day will continue to grow in importance for New Zealanders. They will continue to be part of what shapes our national identity. What this bill does is recognise the importance of those days and says to New Zealanders that they will get a fair deal. That is the fair deal that a Labour Government will provide. In Opposition we are at least able to put this bill forward. I am very grateful for the support from other parties, which I am sure will see this bill pass, and it will be a great day for New Zealand families.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa. I a tātau e kōrero nei mō tenei o ngā pire, e rua ngā take nui whakaharahara, e pīrangitia nei e au, e mātau o te Pāti Māori hei whakatakoto ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. Tuatahi ko tērā o ngā waiata, ngā karanga nei me kī, “honour the Treaty”, tērā kōrero. Ka rua, ko te āhuatanga o te waihotanga mai o Tā Apirana Ngata i te wā i a ia. Arā, ko tana kōrero, ko “the price of citizenship”. Ēnei take katoa, “honour the Treaty”, “the price of citizenship”, kei reira tonu tētahi hononga ki waenganui i ngā kaupapa e rua i roto i tēnei pire.

Ehara i te mea kua aro atu mātau ki tēnei mea ko te hararei, kāo. Kua waihotia ake tērā ki te taha. Ehara i te mea kua aro atu ki te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te moni, me ngā mahi o te pakihi, kāo. Ka waiho tērā ki reira. Kotahi tonu te kaupapa, ko tō tātau nohotahi, i raro i te korowai o Aotearoa. Ngā rā e 2, kātahi nei ngā rā whakaharahara hei hanga i tēnei mea ko te kotahitanga o Aotearoa. Ka mutu, ko tā tātau nohotahi ā-Māori, ā-Pākehā me kī i te whenua kotahi. Me pēnā ka tika i tēnei rā, i tēnei wiki i te mea ko Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori tēnei, 25 tau mai i te wā i whakamanahia ai te rā o Te Reo Māori. Me kī ko te ture Maori Language Act 1987.

Ko ēnei momo ture, me tērā o te Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, he kaupapa nui whakaharahara o roto i a tātau. Nā runga i te aha nā runga i te mea ko ēnei kaupapa e rua, e hangaia nei hei whakakotahi nei i a tātau—kaua ki te whakawehewehe. Ka mutu, ka puta te kōrero he whenua motuhake a Aotearoa, tā tātau noho ā-iwi Tiriti, ā-iwi tangata whenua.

Ko ētahi o te motu ka kī atu, ē, nō mua noa atu, nō ngā rā ō nehe ēnei kōrero katoa. Waiho ngā take o te Tiriti o Waitangi ki mua, ki reira tahuna mai ai. Ka mutu, kāre he paku pānga o ērā kaupapa o ngā tau 1840. Waiho ērā ki reira kāre he take o ēnei rā, ko tāku ko te kī atu e kāo, kāo. Me kōrero i ēnei kōrero mō te Tiriti ka tahi, me kōrero mō te āhuatanga o te hunga i haere ki tāwāhi mō te pakanga. Ka mutu kei reira tonu tētahi tauira ō roto i te Muriwhenua fishing report i te tau 1988. Ka puta te kōrero a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, mō te āhuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi i ēnei rā. Anei tā rātau i te reo Pākehā: “Any impracticality today results not from the Treaty but from our failure to heed its terms. The important point is that there was, and still is, room for an agreement to be made.” He kupu whakaharahara ēnei kupu i te mea, he mea whakaohooho nei i te āhuatanga o te tīmatanga mai o te Tiriti. Ka mutu, he hononga o te Tiriti Pākehā ki te Ao Māori e noho nei i raro i te korowai kotahi. Me maumahara anō hoki tātau, i hainatia te Tiriti i te tau 1840. Ka mutu, 200,000 Māori ki tērā o te 2,000 Pākehā. Ko wai te pōrangi ka kī atu ka tukuna e te Māori tōna rangatiratanga ki te hunga manuhiri me kī. Kāre au i te whakaae atu ki tērā. Nō reira, i whai atu ngā mātua tīpuna o te Ao Māori i tēnei huarahi kia nohotahi i raro i te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te rangatiratanga kua mōhio tonu tātau e noho taupatupatu ngā kaupapa.

Ka mutu, ka hoki mai ki te āhuatanga o te Anzac. He kaupapa anō rā tērā kua pā mai ki a tātau. I te rau tau kua hipa ake, i konei a Tā Apirana Ngata, i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata, i mua o te wā o te haerenga o ngā hōia ki tāwāhi, me tana kōrero mō tēnei mea o “the price of citizenship”. Ko tana kōrero, i haere ngā Māori ki tāwāhi ki te pakanga i tuku i te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te oranga o te tangata mō te aha? Ka mutu mō te equal citizenship i raro i te korowai o te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Nō reira ēnei kōrero katoa e hāngai tonu ana ki a tātau ināiatonunei. Nō reira koinei te āhuatanga o tā mātau harikoa kua eke tēnei o ngā kōrero ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. Ko tā te Pāti Māori he tautoko i te ia o tēnei pire, ka mutu ka tautoko ake kia taea ai e te marea, te wānanga te hōhonutanga o tēnei mea, kia hoki mai ki taku kōrero, e rua ngā take, “honour the Treaty” ka tahi, “the price of citizenship” ka rua. Ērā atu kōrero katoa mō te moni, waiho mō te wā. Tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Greetings, everyone. As we debate this bill there are two concepts that we, the Māori Party, wish to present before Parliament. Firstly, there is the activist chant “honour the Treaty”, and, secondly, there is the legacy of Sir Apirana Ngata’s phrase “the price of citizenship”. Both are connected intimately in this bill.

Our support is not connected to the opportunity for a holiday. Neither is it about the impact of this bill on productivity or whether Mondayising the day makes good business sense. Our support is founded on the fundamental importance of these 2 days in helping define our sense of nationhood. Of course, it is an appropriate time to be doing this, in Māori Language Week, the 25th anniversary of the Maori Language Act 1987.

Legislation like that Act and the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act are milestones along the way in the journey of nation-building. They are pointers in our collective knowledge about what makes us unique: the relationship between the indigenous people, the people of the Treaty.

Some people seem to speak of history—more particularly, the events of 1840, or the world wars in which our nation served—as being about a past that has no relevance to today. I reject those sentiments. That is precisely why we need to continue to talk about the Treaty and to reflect on those who went overseas to war. In the Muriwhenua fishing report of 1988, the Waitangi Tribunal spoke about the practical application of the Treaty for the modern world. This is what they had to say in English: “Any impracticality today results not from the Treaty but from our failure to heed its terms. The important point is that there was, and still is, room for an agreement to be made.” These words are important because they remind us that at the genesis of the Treaty was a solemn commitment for two parties to live together. We have to remember that when the Treaty was signed in 1840, the population was something like 200,000 Māori and 2,000 Pākehā. It does not make sense that those chiefs who signed the Treaty would voluntarily give up power to a visitor, so to speak. Our Māori ancestors pursued this pathway to ensure the continuation of Māori authority, which continues to be debated.

Let me return to Anzac Day, which is very significant to us. Last century in Parliament Sir Apirana Ngata described the participation of Māori in the war effort as “the price of citizenship”. His enduring battle cry was that Māori sacrifice and service in the name of war should be honoured with the recognition of full and equal citizenship as promised in the Treaty of Waitangi.

And so all of these statements pertain to us now. Therefore, we are delighted this debate is before Parliament. The Māori Party endorses the essence of this bill and we support the public delving into the complex aspects of this matter as I repeat two calls: “honour the Treaty” and “the price of citizenship”. Leave the debate about money for another time. Thank you.]

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora koutou, and kia ora to that member, Te Ururoa Flavell. I want to take members’ memories back to earlier this year when we enjoyed fine weather across the country on both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. We had record crowds around the country commemorating those events and people spending time with their families, friends, and loved ones. But the year before last, and last year, people missed out on their full complement of holidays. This year, by contrast, we had increased commemorations and increased celebrations. I am looking forward to this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, passing through the House so that hard-working Kiwis can get the holidays they deserve every year, not just in 5 years out of 7.

I want to acknowledge again at this point the contribution of Grant Robertson, who originally drafted this bill. His astuteness needs to be put on the record. I have been proud to sponsor this bill, because it is a good bill. It is a bill that is about a fair deal for Kiwi families. There are 11 public holidays in the Holidays Act, and we deserve all 11. This bill makes sure we get them all. The growing significance of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day to our sense of history and identity as New Zealanders means that they deserve full recognition—full recognition, in the same way that other holidays get full recognition.

I want to take a minute just to contemplate what we have heard from the other side of the House in this debate. The strongest argument, perhaps, if we could call it that, has been put forward by David Bennett, who announced that we should not fix this problem, because it does not happen again for a while. I want to suggest that that is akin to not fixing the roof because it is not raining. The problem is here in front of us. We have the opportunity to fix it, and we should get on with it. The only other argument I have heard put forward by the members opposite, outside this Chamber, is that it somehow demeans the day. That is rubbish. We know that they Mondayise Anzac Day and their national day in Australia, and attendances at both events have gone up. In 2010 when Christmas was celebrated on a weekend no one thought the celebration should be put off. They celebrated it on 25 December, and the celebration was no less sincere because the day fell on a weekend and because they got an extra holiday and some time with their families on the day after Boxing Day.

It is interesting that today Mind Your Own Business released the results of a survey it conducted last year, when it asked its members—businesses—what they thought of the proposal to Mondayise, and 50 percent of small to medium-sized enterprise business owners said they supported the idea of Mondayising public holidays that fall on a weekend. Just 13 percent opposed the policy. So 87 percent of small-business owners felt that it was either neutral or a beneficial thing, and that is because good business owners tend to take a positive view of policies that support their employees.

Hon Member: That’s right; they do.

Dr DAVID CLARK: That is right, and I am quoting from the press release here: “the majority of business owners believe that the benefits to their employees—in having time off to spend with friends and family—and the productivity gains that come from a positive work life balance, are worth investing in.” The Labour Party agrees with that view.

There are benefits, we have heard, as well, for domestic tourism. As chief executive Martin Snedden highlighted yesterday, $36 million accrues to the economy with each of these holidays, and the Minister of Tourism, John Key, has to stand up to that industry and explain why he does not think they should get that benefit. It seems more and more that the National Government is getting offside not only with workers, by stealing their holidays from them, but also with employer groups.

The most important thing, though, that this legislation does is give hard-working Kiwis a little more time with their families. Kiwis work amongst the longest hours in the OECD. They work 1 or 2 hours extra every week more than their Australian counterparts, and they get paid less. We know that there is a correlation between productivity and countries that value their workforces. There are benefits to the economy of having well-educated, well-rested, and productive workers.

I want to thank the parties around the Parliament for their support for this bill: my Labour colleagues, of course, the Greens, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, United Future, and Mana. These parties have heard the voice of New Zealanders, unlike the party of Grinches opposite us. My bill corrects an anomaly. It offers the full recognition to Waitangi Day and Anzac Day that they deserve, and it ensures hard-working Kiwis get the holidays they deserve every year.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Bills

Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill

First Reading

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I move, That the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. The purpose of this bill is very simple, but the principles underlying the introduction of this bill are incredibly important. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act of 1964, and particularly for the people in the Green Party I want to acknowledge that this is not repealing having joints in the family home.

This is also a bill that is a statement about the laws of New Zealand, that they need to be tidy, simple, current, and up to date, and is also about reducing tautological redundancy, if you will allow me a little bit of etymological humour.

Tim Macindoe: Yes please.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Thank you. I really enjoyed that, now that the Labour Party has gone on holiday. Anyway, before I turn to the particulars of this bill I do want to reflect on the context in which it was introduced. It is almost 8 months to the day, in fact 8 months tomorrow, that I was elected to Parliament, to the great seat, in fact the best seat, in Parliament, the seat of Tāmaki. They are absolutely thrilled that their new member of Parliament is having the opportunity to take a piece of legislation, a member’s piece of legislation, through the House. It is a really great privilege to be able to guide it through and to learn the process. That does not take away from the importance of the bill, but what it is is an opportunity to be a legislator. I suppose it is a good reminder to us all in the House that our first core purpose is to be legislators, so I am absolutely thrilled, and thrilled, too, that my constituents are happy with that. I have been having a lot of good engagement with them, and with lawyers and that, around Auckland in particular. It is an honour to be here, to have a bill in my name so early in the piece.

I want to now turn to thank my colleagues, who have given me great support in preparing for this, and the Clerk and others in Parliament who have assisted. Again, this is a new experience. My thanks also to those in the community. As I said, I was struck from the moment it was pulled out of the ballot in the Table Office how many people, be they media, lawyers, or others, were on the phone to ask questions around this. That is always an excellent way to polish up your knowledge of, and reading on, the area.

I noted that the primary purpose of the bill is to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act of 1964, but I also noted that there is a wider philosophy within this, and that is to make legislation that is accessible, clear, concise, up to date, non-repetitive, and current. This is emblematic of National’s philosophy. It is a commitment to legal clarity, to reducing red tape, and to eliminating unnecessary legislation. It is a benign little bill in this House, and I am looking forward to the unanimous support of the House.

Dr Cam Calder: Hear, hear.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Indeed. Because, you know, who wants to stand up here and say that we need more legislation and more red tape? This really is a simple bill to get those easy things done, and for all of us to make this country a little bit better.

I do want to turn now to the legislation itself and to talk a little bit about the background that provides the context around the whole repeal bill. The Joint Family Homes Act was put through in 1964 to protect the family home. Anecdotally, what it was there for was that if the wife or the husband went bankrupt, then the house itself could not be lost. It was to be registered in the joint name of the married couple. Importantly, it was there to secure the family home from unsecured creditors, and I think that is one distinction that I have needed to put out to the public when talking with them over recent weeks and months. It was a situation, again, where bankruptcy was the primary concern—that if the husband or the wife went bankrupt, there was an opportunity to protect the family home.

Another important aspect or area of the Act that was put through and not often discussed is that it protected only the equity of the house, or up to $103,000. I know there is often a lot of talk in the House around rising house prices and so forth, so this bill, which is seeking to repeal the Act, is shown in the context of really bringing things up to date.

I should return to the initial Act of 1964, not that I was around at the time, of course. At the time the Act came through there were death duties, stamp duties, and gift duties. We find now that there is no need for the Act. The Law Commission realised this in 2001. It put out a fairly substantial report, and I am quite sure all members of the House have pored over that word for word. It was in 2001 that the Law Commission recommended this change, and my colleague the now Hon Jo Goodhew sponsored the bill, but on taking the Crown warrant she had to hand it over. I took a bit of time to consider whether to put my name to this, and as I was saying to someone the other day, I did not do so lightly. All legislation is important. I think actually it is a really good example of the efficacy of being in the Table Office when the ballot is being drawn. The first time I put my name to a bill, the first time I went to the Table Office, the bill got drawn out. So I am looking forward to my second and third member’s bill.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You should have taken a Lotto ticket instead.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I did. I was not so lucky on that one, Mr Mallard. The Law Commission has said that this Act is no longer needed. This is a chance to repeal it. What we have seen is that new legislation over the years has replaced the need for this Joint Family Homes Act. We have the Property (Relationships) Act, which splits assets automatically. We have family trusts and the added value, of late, that gift duty is no longer required. We also note that the previous Act limited the amount that could be held to unsecured creditors. As I said, death duties have gone and stamp duties have gone, and the Act is now a redundant piece of legislation.

Finally, turning to the practical elements, when this Act first started we had over 30,000 people who used it, but back in 2001 it was just over 1,000—of course, that is about 11 years ago. Its usage has dropped. I do want to recommend this bill to the House, and in doing so I want to return to first principles. This member’s bill sits on the principles of making law that is accessible, clear, and up to date. It is about keeping our statute book up to date, and to that end this bill is very important. It is important, too, as it brings clarity to the issues of relationships and property. Other laws are well in place to protect Kiwis in this matter, and I think that is one key message for those listening in.

The repeal of the Joint Family Homes Act is not going to revolutionise this country. It is not going to make society better in one bold stroke, but it is a small step in the right direction. So, Mr Speaker and colleagues in the House, I ask for your support as we move this bill in its first reading.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): When the Joint Family Homes Act 1950, the predecessor to the legislation that would be repealed by this bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, was enacted, the then National Government described that Act as part of its programme to reinforce Christian family values. What the current Act does, as we have heard from the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, is allow a married couple that lives in a house owned by either or both of them to have the house vested in both of them as joint tenants. Originally there was a great deal of benefit in doing this because it would save potential liabilities for death duties, to unsecured creditors, for gift duty, and in respect of other anomalies that have now been excised from the statute book. Most of these advantages simply do not exist any more, except, perhaps, for some of the creditors protection and perhaps some minor advantages in relation to legal costs.

That is why, in December 2001, the Law Commission recommended that the Act be removed from the statute book. The Law Commission points out in its report that the legislation discriminates against single owners; it is anomalous, given the way in which our society has evolved; it discriminates against those in de facto relationships; the protection that it provides against creditors is limited; and it takes into account neither the differences in property values around the country nor the fact that trusts are often used on a contemporary basis to protect against creditors.

The Law Commission report is an excellent report. The bill replicates almost exactly the Law Commission’s recommendations. The Labour Opposition will be delighted, for those reasons, to support it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and we will listen to the evidence given at the select committee carefully.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Whakanuia Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us, the House. Celebrate Māori Language Week.]

I would like to congratulate my colleague Simon O’Connor, the member for Tāmaki, on his achievement in bringing this measure, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, to the House. It is a significant matter for any MP to advance a member’s bill, but to be doing so in his first year of office is particularly meritorious. Mr O’Connor has made an excellent start to his parliamentary career, and, if I may say so, the people of Tāmaki made an excellent choice in sending him here. Me whakanuia e tātou. [We need to celebrate it.]

I would also like to commend the Waikato Bay of Plenty Magic team for a stunning victory in last weekend’s ANZ netball championship over the Melbourne Vixens. In fact, I would like to describe their superb fightback to clinch the title in the dying moments at some length, but I suspect that some humourless representative of a less talented region would object, on the grounds that the Magic’s brilliance may not be fundamental to the core provisions of this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill.

One might argue that Mr O’Connor has demonstrated the stunning leadership of Laura Langman in triumphing in the lottery that is a parliamentary member’s bill ballot, or that he has reflected the coaching expertise of a Noeline Taurua in ensuring that all members of our caucus are well prepared and understand how we must contribute to the team effort in the course of this first reading debate—perhaps the never-say-die tenacity of a Casey Williams. Hōmai te pakipaki to them all. We are so proud of our girls and their achievements. But I do note that their performance was tinged with sadness, as we all felt for Irene van Dyk, who suffered the death of her mother just days before the final. Truly, those last goals that secured the title were for Irene’s mother, and we send our aroha and prayers to the family as they prepare for the funeral this week.

But before I suffer the devastating interception of a Leana de Bruin, seeking to bring this analogy to a close, let me instead offer on behalf of this House my very best wishes to the home side, which will surely prevail in its crusade against the hopes of the south at the Waikato Stadium this Friday night. Kia kaha. Go the Chiefs. I know the whole House will be willing them all on—or at least those of us with two eyes and a sense of destiny.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this is a relatively wide-ranging speech, and there was a point I think, when we were playing the Australians, where everyone was behind the member, but I think now he is being absolutely controversial in his attacks on Canterbury. It should stop, and he should get back to the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I thank the honourable member for his views, and indicate to the member on my right that I had indicated several times that he should speak to the bill.

TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your indulgence. I am sure the people of the Waikato will be reminded from that point of order about why they sent Mr Mallard slightly south, but, yes, I appreciate that I must get to the point.

As you may have gathered, I was really hoping that I might have got to take a call in the general debate this afternoon. Had I done so, I would also have referred to the Law Commission’s 2001 report The Future of the Joint Family Homes Act. In his introductory remarks, the member for Tāmaki acknowledged the commission’s report, which observed that “The advantages flowing from registration as a joint family home, were at the commencement of the scheme, these: a substantial death duty saving; a degree of protection against unsecured creditors … the security for a spouse not already on the title (usually the wife) of being able, on becoming a co-owner, to thwart dispositions of the property of which she disapproved (as improvident for example); the convenience of being able, as part of financial planning schemes (usually but not invariably tax driven), to vest their homes in both spouses without incurring stamp or gift duty; and the saving of legal costs in the case of very small estates …”.

The commission then concluded—and I remind the House that this was more than a decade ago: “In the half-century since the coming into force of the Joint Family Homes Act 1950, most of these advantages have evaporated.” Death duties, estate duties, stamp duty, and gift duty are all now abolished. In relation to protection from creditors, the Law Commission noted that registration as a joint family home did not often make a difference in the way the estates of bankrupts were disposed of.

Jumping ahead to 2012, it is clear that this Act we are considering repealing is discriminatory, as it excludes de facto partners, civil union partners, and those who live alone. So for many reasons, most of which have already been outlined by the member in charge of the bill, this Act is now redundant. I commend the member for Tāmaki for acting on the Law Commission’s long-deferred recommendation and bringing it to the House. Kua mutu, kai raro.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I just want to speak briefly to the introduction of the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, to also join in the spirit, I guess—I am hoping that there will be a similar response to my member’s bill, which is next on the Order Paper—and to say that we will certainly support the bill to select committee. It does raise an issue that has been dealt with substantially by the Law Commission, so, therefore, it is a very good bill for the member Simon O’Connor to be introducing. I think I heard him say that the first time he went down for a ballot he had it drawn. I say congratulations to that member. I have been here a very long time. I do not often get bills on the Order Paper, but I have got one next, and I do hope that I am able to encourage members on that side of the House to support it, at least to select committee.

Hon Trevor Mallard: So he’s scoring at 100 percent—that’s pretty good.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It is actually not bad. It is actually not bad on every level. He has scored at 100 percent. I just thought I would note for the record what others have mentioned—not to traverse the ground about where the legislation originally came from but simply to comment on the one remaining element of protection that it does offer, and that is protection against creditors. When one looks at the detail of the Law Commission report around that remaining protection, though, it actually is more stated than real. It is less of substance in terms of a remaining protection. In terms of the rights of spouses or their survivor, they are protected from bankruptcy in execution, but the rights of secured creditors remain unaffected. So it really is not quite a substantial protection.

The other thing is that the specified sum, which is fixed from time to time by Order in Council, is currently $82,000 for the joint family home—an amount that was fixed in 1996. [Interruption] Well, I do not know that there are many places where one can purchase a house for $82,000 or anywhere near it, but I certainly know that property prices have been increasing in Christchurch quite considerably, having been recently in the property market myself. I think—and this is going back in my memory—we signed up for a joint family home on the basis that you just signed up for a joint family home. There really was not any substantial reason for so doing. I think the time for this legislation to stay on our books has probably gone, and that is certainly the conclusion the Law Commission reached in December 2001.

I congratulate the member on his success, and look forward to some positive support for my member’s bill, which is next on the Order Paper.

HOLLY WALKER (Green): E te Rangatira o te Whakaruruhau nei, te hunga kōkō tātākī me te kaupapa o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, taketake o te whenua nei, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the Speaker of this House, the witty speakers, and the matter that relates to Māori Language Week, the indigenous language of this country, acknowledgments to you all.]

I am happy to take a short call on the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, to support my colleagues in articulating the reasons why the Green Party will vote to support this bill. I would like to begin by offering my sympathies to the bill’s sponsor, Simon O’Connor, who appears to have drawn somewhat of the short straw with this bill, and has very selflessly put forward what really should be a Government bill—and should have been a Government bill many years ago—as a member’s bill in his name. I guess one thing we can all celebrate is that this bill is no longer cluttering up the ballot, and we can look forward to some bolder and more interesting and innovative bills coming from the member in future. Long may his luck with the ballot continue.

As my colleagues will outline, the Green Party will be supporting this bill, which repeals the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. This change is long overdue, and we note that the Law Commission first recommended its repeal as long ago as 2001. So it is very much a case of better late than never.

Under the Joint Family Homes Act 1964 a dwelling occupied as their home by a married couple and owned by either or both of them could be vested in the husband and wife as joint tenants. At the time, the advantages of this provision were considered to be savings in death duty, a protection against unsecured creditors, security for the spouse not on the title—which in those days was usually the wife—the ability to vest a home in both spouses without incurring stamp or gift duty, and the saving of legal costs in the case of very small estates.

In the nearly 50 years since the legislation was enacted, most of those advantages have since evaporated. Most of them were superseded by the Matrimonial Property Act in 1976, namely the provisions related to death duty, shared title, and gift and stamp duty. The only outstanding benefit, as we have just heard from the member Lianne Dalziel, is protection from creditors and some minor advantages in relation to legal costs. The Law Commission concluded in 2001 that these were not sufficient to retain this legislation.

What I would like to add to the debate, which the Law Commission did outline, are the issues with discrimination on the basis of marital status that are entrenched in this outdated bill. As we know, in the intervening years there has been a trend away from formal legal marriage towards de facto relationships, which have since been recognised in law. And, as I know probably better than many members, as my partner and I are happily united in civil union, we also now have the option of civil unions in New Zealand and have done since 2004.

The 1964 legislation has never been updated to take this into account. So what we have is a prima facie case where under the Human Rights Act 1993 discrimination on the grounds of marital status is prohibited, and it is clear that to afford a protection against the claims of creditors to married couples that is unavailable to anyone else is discriminatory. That alone should be reason enough for the repeal of this legislation.

The Green Party is very happy to vote in support of this bill, and we look forward to the future contributions in the members’ ballot from the member Simon O’Connor. Kia ora.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Like many other members of the House who have been legal practitioners, I have acted in the registration of so many joint family homes over the years that I have certainly lost count of them. The Joint Family Homes Act was a very, very popular piece of legislation and it was a very, very popular thing for people to do. I might say that it was a nice little earner as well for those of us in the legal profession. So that was an advantage all by itself.

Dr Cam Calder: Very candid of you, Denis—very candid of you.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Thank you; thank you so much. It was, of course, fundamentally a way in which a husband and wife could become the joint owners of a property, and become the legal and beneficial owners thereof. It was a convenient and inexpensive way to reflect the real interest of both the husband and the wife in the family home. It offered some protection against creditors, but not very much, and I do not think that was ever a major reason for people registering joint family homes. It meant a transmission by survivorship if one of them died; that was important to them. It confirmed equal rights to occupy and use a property, and that was pretty important, especially to wives, who liked to see this being done, for obvious reasons. It prevented alienation of the interests of either party while both were living—again very popular, especially with wives. It did not affect the capacity to mortgage, sell, or charge, with the agreement of both parties.

It was not property for the purposes of the Insolvency Act, but the main reason was that it was a transaction that was exempt from stamp duties while they were applied, from estate duties while they were applied, and until relatively recently from gift duty, which has now also been abolished. Now that those things have been abolished, the popularity of registering joint family homes is, of course, reduced. It is sometimes said that there is a lingering advantage in joint family homes with the protection against creditors. But as I said before, I do not believe that was ever a primary consideration for most people who registered joint family homes. So the loss of that very limited protection, which was not a primary reason for joint family homes, will not really be missed, and it is not a reason for opposing this bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill.

The joint family homes legislation and facility was very popular, but it is no longer necessary. One of the disadvantages of it, of course, was that it was discriminatory, in that it did not apply to de facto partners, and that it did not apply to single owners. It has been superseded, of course, by matrimonial legislation, which provides the same facility in a different way. So we in New Zealand First agree that the Joint Family Homes Act is redundant, and we will certainly support this bill going on to the select committee.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. It is a great pleasure to rise and speak briefly on this bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. It is wonderful that occasionally we get the chance to remove legislation from the statute book that is no longer necessary. Normally we are making legislation; this is an opportunity to remove redundant legislation, and I want to congratulate my colleague Simon O’Connor who very early in his career has achieved the opportunity to bring a member’s bill to the House—well done, Simon.

As we know, the purpose of this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill is to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. The bill effectively seeks to tidy up New Zealand’s existing legislation on relationship law, and to ensure it is up to date and current. It is important to consider 1964. What was happening in 1964? Well, in music the Beatles were storming the USA with their tour to the USA, and took the top five places in the Billboard Hot 100—the top five places in the Billboard Hot 100. I can see Denis O’Rourke over there thinking is it “Can’t Buy Me Love”? Yes, Denis, it was. “Twist and Shout”, Mr Mallard? Yes. “She Loves You”, Parekura. That is right. “I Want to Hold Your Hand”, who would be that? Yes, Rino. And, “Please Please Me”, Charles Chauvel. Those were the top five in the Billboard Hot 100 in 1964 when this legislation that we are repealing was enacted.

What else was happening in 1964? In 1964 we had the Tokyo Olympics Games, where Peter Snell won a gold medal in the 800 and 1,500 metres. Peter Snell achieved notoriety and fame in New Zealand for the rest of his life as a double gold medallist in Tokyo. Nikita Khrushchev, whom many of us may have seen pictures of banging his shoe on the table of the United Nations, was mysteriously deposed from leadership of the Soviet Union. And Barbara Hepworth, that well-known, internationally renowned sculptor unveiled Single Form, her sculpture outside the UN headquarters. Andy Warhol, of course, produced his signature five Marilyns series.

In 1964—and there are some in the House who can probably remember—there were droves of schoolboys and schoolgirls wearing caps and berets going to school on bicycles. Yes, it did happen—it did happen. Guys who erred in school cadets, which was another event in 1964 that many took part in, were asked to run around the field at school, carrying a .303 rifle above their heads, or, if it was outside of school cadets and they were in the classroom, they were often given a couple of cuts with a cane.

That was then and this is now. I mention this: in the family we are talking about, dad probably went to the pub, there was early 6 o’clock closing, and he would get home to the wife. That was another thing in 1964 that was extant then. Of course, Austin Mitchell wrote about these times in his classic tome The Half Gallon Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise. But that was then and this is now, and in 2001 the Law Commission advised the repeal of the Act, noting that the public has ample alternative legal devices at its disposal in its absence. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): Kia ora e te whānau. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I congratulate sincerely the member Simon O’Connor on his Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill being picked out of the ballot. I also have a bill in there—for a couple of years now—and it takes a while to get the luck that that member has had, so congratulations.

The background to this bill is very simple. Some time before 2001 the then Minister asked the Law Commission to have a look at this area, at whether enough changes had occurred and whether we needed the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. The Law Commission went away and did a detailed piece of work. Clearly, people who have spoken today have read that report. After that examination, the commission concluded that there were only two serious bits remaining that needed to be talked about: protection from creditors—and other members have talked about that—and savings in legal costs in developing joint family homes. The Law Commission then had a look at both of those and concluded that there was nothing there that required the Act to stay on the statute book. In 2001 its report said that the Act should go and, alongside that, the provision in the Family Protection Act that also is repealed by this particular bill also needed to go.

So this bill is quite simple, and, clearly, we support it, but not the arguments that the members opposite have presented for this particular bill. In a sense this is Simon O’Connor’s Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. This bill is identical to that one. Somebody in the National Party has decided: “Look, those backbenchers need to get their act into gear. We have got to give them something to do, so we will dream up bills that really will not make one iota of difference to contemporary issues facing New Zealand.”

Tim Macindoe: The Law Commission reported it—

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Not one iota, Mr Macindoe—not one. So this bill was put in the ballot. I do think the members speaking on this bill today are far more fortunate; they are in a much better place than when they were asked to defend the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. At least Simon O’Connor has presented an argument. I remember that, on the third reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, members opposite gathered in large number. That bill seemed to have been designed only to pick the spirits up of the member who had proposed that particular bill. At least there is something serious about this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, in the sense that the member Simon O’Connor can present an argument, and he has presented it as well.

But look at the argument he has presented. This bill is the Government’s attempt to actually have a clean legislative slate, so to speak—to clear out legislation. This bill is its attempt. By golly, if this is it, then I am sorry but there is not much left in the tank. And there are so many other, more important things to do. I wish the members would think about that. Of course, the private—[Interruption] Ordinarily, Mr Macindoe, an omnibus bill would be brought in to strip, to clean out these things, and would put them all together. That is what ought to have happened, but it did not.

But look at the difference between what these members opposite are now presenting, using the member’s bill process to do it, and what this side of the House is doing. Here we are today discussing this bill, which will not make an iota of difference to anybody’s life today.

Hon Members: Aw!

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: It will not—not to anybody’s life today. But on the other side of the House here we have just had passed—the Government was defeated—a bill about full recognition of holidays. That was what somebody from this side of the House had thought through. It will make a difference to the lives of people. Again, maybe later on this evening we will be discussing the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Here also a member has thought it through. But, no, the members opposite would sooner discuss the equivalent of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill—bills that do not make any difference at all, bills that do not address contemporary issues, bills that just keep backbenchers busy. Mr Macindoe has not had one picked out of the ballot. I wonder what it would be. Maybe some kind of thing about—I do not know—houses? I do not know. It might be a housing one, Mr Macindoe. There might be something about housing that the member might want to talk about.

Hon Trevor Mallard: We used to have a good MP in Hamilton West.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: That is right, and he did a lot of good work. So I ask Mr Macindoe to put forward something serious that makes a difference. But we will be supporting this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and let us listen to the arguments. Thank you.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): Tēnā koutou katoa. It is indeed a pleasure to speak in this first reading of Simon O’Connor’s bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. It is about repealing old and tired legislation, and cleaning up our statute book. Existing legislation, once it has served its purpose, needs to be repealed. Certainly, the 40-year-old Joint Family Homes Act 1964 fits that category, and this bill will do exactly that. We have heard that the Law Commission recommended that it should be repealed over a decade ago. I am delighted that Simon has the opportunity to do just that today. The world has certainly moved on from 40 years ago. The Joint Family Homes Act 1964 is out of date and has been superseded by legislation and, certainly, modern practice. The Law Commission noted that even in 2001 the Act had largely lost most of the commercial and social importance that it once may have had.

The 1964 Act was originally intended to protect the homes of married couples from the claims of unsecured creditors and from death duties by allowing a dwelling occupied by a couple to be registered as a joint home. Of course, the 1964 Act had many benefits, which we have heard about today. Briefly, they were savings from death duty, protection against unsecured creditors, security for the spouse who was not already on the title on becoming a co-owner, avoiding stamp or gift duty, and legal costs in the case of very small estates. The Law Commission, as I said before, said those advantages had been superseded. Indeed, stamp duty was abolished in 1999 and estate duty in 1992, and, more recently, gift duty was abolished in 2011. The Act has not kept up with modern-day practices. Back in 1964 marriage was certainly the norm; increasingly there have been more and more de facto relationships. The Law Commission report in 2001 said there had been a big shift away from formal, legal marriage. In 1996 there were almost 240,000 people living in a de facto relationship, which was an increase of 46 percent since 1991. Over that time, there had definitely been a decline in the number of marriages. Certainly, it is interesting to note that since 2001 to the present day the absolute number of marriages has remained pretty static, despite the increase in the population. Of course, we have had civil unions, which is something that was not around in 1964. Since 2005 the number of civil unions has gone from 278 up to 377 in 2011.

The rationale for supporting this bill is clearly obvious. I am delighted and I am sure it will get the support of the House, so congratulations to Simon. It is important that legislation and its current purpose remain valid, and it is time this 40-year-old Act is repealed. I commend this bill to the House.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatoru, mihi atu ki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, the Speaker of the House. Secondly, greetings to you, all members of our House. Thirdly, acknowledgments to Māori Language Week, so greetings to you all collectively.]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party regarding the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. As my colleague Holly Walker said earlier, the Green Party will be supporting this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee so we can have a closer look at it. I would like to congratulate the member Simon O’Connor on bringing a fairly simple but sensible bill to the attention of the House, though I must say it is troubling that the Government is unable to implement simple recommendations of the Law Commission, and instead leaves it to its backbench members in their capacity as personal members to undertake what really should be core Government business. I believe that Chris Auchinvole has a similar member’s bill implementing Law Commission recommendations about habeas corpus, which will be coming up before the House very soon.

So this bill seeks to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act 1964, as we have heard, and replace it with nothing at all, because the world has moved on, and moved past the need for this Act. The Act in question enables the dwelling occupied as their home by a married couple and owned by either, or both of them, to be vested in the husband and wife as joint tenants by a reasonably cheap and simple procedure. At the time we heard what the ostensible benefits of the Act were, but the Law Commission noted that, of the five principal benefits of the original legislation, the only remaining ones were some protection against creditors and some savings in legal costs, but only in a minor sense because they benefited only married couples, and therefore were discriminatory against everyone else.

Offering a benefit to traditionally married couples, and not to single homeowners or those in non-traditional relationships or living situations, is potentially discriminatory and certainly does not keep pace with our evolving understanding of what can constitute a relationship. It is our hope that this bill in removing discrimination against non-traditional families is one step—of many—in our evolving understanding. We would be thrilled if non-discrimination were extended to adoption laws, allowing more people to become parents, and if it were extended to marriage equality.

It is a shame that this Government’s progress seems to be driven from the backbenches and wider party membership, sometimes in conjunction with other political parties, and lacks the commitment of the front bench. Although it may not be a priority for the Prime Minister, for example, there is most certainly a clamour in New Zealand to formally modernise its laws to formally recognise other relationships. I also think that there is a lost opportunity for this Government to modernise our approach to residential developments and the laws around them. If we are to overcome many of the challenges that we are facing, including in housing affordability, in transport, and in debt, we are going to need to modernise the different laws that affect residential development. At the moment, the real estate market is not responding to demand, because of significant market failure. That is something that the Government could be addressing, but unfortunately it is not seeking to address that.

What I am talking about, for example, is liberalising the parking requirements in district plans, making sure that planning rules support types of development that are not limited to single, stand-alone family houses on quarter-acre sections, which have been unintentionally subsidised, I think, by the traditional approach to planning. Also, bank lending practices tend to be biased towards single, stand-alone home ownership, and incentivise only property investors to purchase apartments or townhouses, so that leads to a low quality of development and a real shortage in the supply of high-quality, high-amenity dwellings that are not stand-alone family homes.

So although this bill is seeking to modernise one particular law and remove discrimination, I think that the Government could turn its mind to a whole lot of other factors that would enable New Zealand to respond to the challenges facing it.

The Green Party agrees with Mr O’Connor that the principal Act is no longer necessary. We look forward to taking part in the select committee hearings on this bill and gaining full appreciation of the bill before us that, as we can reasonably imagine, will be passed into law. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take this call in reply. May I acknowledge Ms Genter’s last speech. I am always amazed at her ability to get the matter of parking into any debate, question, or conversation. It really is quite the skill. I suppose it is related, because most homes do have an area to park. It is a question that was often put up: why does one park on a driveway? I just leave you with that particular question there. I think it was George Carlin who came up with that.

I want to just thank the House for the generosity in this debate, and the support that has been demonstrated. I think generosity in the House around bills is important, but I want to draw attention to the fact that this is a member’s bill; this is not a Government bill. Part of our democratic structure and process is to allow members, by their choice and volition, to introduce bills into the House for discussion. Although I noted in my initial speech that the Hon Jo Goodhew had this bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, initially, I was very happy to put my name to it. It was something that I took my time to consider.

Again, it is for two, I suppose, simple reasons. The first, which has been highlighted by my colleagues and others here, is the removal of discrimination. I think that is an important element, and I am very pleased as the MP for Tāmaki to be involved with that. I am pleased that the Green Party, in particular, has acknowledged that. I must say to the member Holly Walker that I was not thinking of her in particular, but I am most pleased that this is of benefit to her and her partner as well. But the other part is, again, that principle that our statute book needs to be clear and concise, and about good law. I think that is a really important aspect for me as a legislator coming into this House.

I have noted the concern from some members about whether this is going to be the zenith of my career and so forth—concern that I might have been put up to this. Well, I have good news for the House—good news. I see this as just the first step on the ladder. As I noted in my speech, it is very important to learn the process and to take a bill through. Fortunately, between these two ears there are certainly plenty more ideas and thoughts for bills to come. But when it comes to the luck of the next ballot, we will have to see how that works. We will have to continue, maybe, to be in Government and proceed that way as well. I do thank the honourable members for that concern, but yes, the news for the House is that I intend—with the good graces of my electorate—to be around for a while and progress more legislation.

Turning back, then, to the repeal bill—well, actually, before I turn to the bill I should acknowledge Dr Cam Calder’s mention of 1964. It was very useful, Dr Calder, seeing as I was not around in 1964—or 1974, for that matter. It was a useful and quick history lesson—[Interruption] Scurrilous, really. We will not draw that out. But the repeal bill, fortunately, in 1984—I think something else happened there as well.

Coming back to the bill itself, I have just a few messages for those who are following this debate with interest. The Joint Family Homes Act of 1964, importantly—for those listening at home—was only for unsecured creditors, it was a limited amount of money that covered your home, and it was an Act that is now redundant due to the removal of things like death duties, stamp duties, gift duties, and so forth. It was an Act whose time ended many years ago.

I commend the Law Commission and those involved for putting forward the recommendations in 2001, those who translated it into a bill before the House, Jo Goodhew for originally sponsoring it, and colleagues on all sides of the House for the veracity of the debate on this bill. I think that today this bill will be the highlight. I am not sure how members will cope after this, but I am looking forward to that debate. I thank you all once again. I recommend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Bills

Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I move, That the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration, provided I have the support of the very generous members on the other side of the House, who have recently been speaking on another bill. The reason that I am hoping that there will be support in this House for this bill is probably that the pressure for this legislation has diminished as a result of the settlement between ANZ and ING, who were the original reason for this particular measure, and the Commerce Commission. The Commerce Commission and ANZ and ING came to a settlement back in June 2010, which was after I had drafted this particular bill. I was not as fortunate as the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, was on his bill, having had it drawn from the ballot at the first instance. I reinstated it into the ballot after the general election, and it was then that I was fortunate enough to have it drawn.

However, the issue that came to the fore in that particular case, as I say, has been addressed with the settlement but does not prevent the same thing from happening again, which is why I think the bill is important, and why I hope that members opposite will agree to refer it to a select committee. I know that some members were mistakenly of the view that this matter is now addressed in the Securities Commission legislation and the Financial Markets Authority legislation, but this particular situation arose out of having to preclude the response of the two particular regulators, which were the Banking Ombudsman and the Commerce Commission. The legislation surrounding them does not provide the same protections that are available under the securities legislation. I did just want to make that point, because I would be very disappointed if people did not support the bill based on a misapprehension of the particular issue.

There are a lot of people in this House now who probably do not have the same history around this legislation; certainly it got a lot of publicity at the time. Some members of the House will not have heard about the ING-ANZ Frozen Funds Group Trust, which was established, and one of its leaders, a guy called Gerard Prinsen. I actually brought a photo to the House. This is a photo that sits on my desk. It has “Dalziel’s Bridge” written on it. It is actually a photograph; I have no idea where Dalziel’s Bridge is. If anyone does know where it is, it would be very nice to go and see it. It could be Scotland, and there it would be called “Dee-elle’s” Bridge. But, anyway, the reason that I always thought that this photograph was kind of amusing was because my press secretary always used to say “Build a bridge.”, which was her way of saying “Get over it.” But the message that came with this photograph—and this was presented to me by Gerard Prinsen—was that the strongest bridges are built while the rivers run dry. The point is that there are times when we have an opportunity in this House to take up a case on behalf of a group of people who have been unfairly treated or who have found themselves in a situation where they look to Parliament for a solution because they cannot find that solution within the community or within themselves.

What this bill does is be a bridge; it is designed to be a bridge. It bridges the gap between those who have the power to impose intolerable conditions on others when a settlement is being negotiated and to say it is a fair deal and those who have no alternative but to accept the offer while it is on the table. And why do they have to accept the offer? Because those offers are always made with a deadline, and if the offer is not accepted by the time the deadline comes, then where do you stand? Does that really leave people in a position where they are bargaining on a fair basis? That does not actually stop a hard bargain being driven, certainly, even by a person in a dominant position. What this bill is designed to do is to stop them being let off the hook for behaviour that does not meet the legal standard imposed by a regulator—in this particular case, the Banking Ombudsman or the Commerce Commission.

I think the most difficult experience that I had as a Minister of Commerce was the sense of helplessness that I felt as I watched the inevitable domino effect that flowed from the original finance company failures in 2006. The fact that my predecessor had already begun a consultation process in terms of the regulation of financial advisers, and that I had already released nine discussion documents collectively known as the Review of Financial Products and Providers, before the first string of finance company collapses occurred, really paled into insignificance against the extent of the losses that people had suffered. And it was not like the proverbial run on the bank either. Fixed-term investments meant that thousands of people literally held their breath until they could take their money out. Of course, once they could take their money out, there was the second string of failures, beginning with the collapse of Bridgecorp in 2007.

I received report after report after report of people facing individual financial ruin as a result of an investment decision in one of these companies. It became very apparent to me that it was not greed that drove the investment decisions—I think greed had a place, but it was at the other end of the spectrum—but rather a lack of knowledge about the nature of the risk that people face. I just want to quote from the media release that the Commerce Commission put out at the point of settlement: “It is important that consumers are able to make properly informed decisions, based on clear and accurate information. Investors decide where to invest their money based largely on their appetite for risk. Throughout our investigation investors have told us that they would not have invested in these funds if the actual risk had been represented accurately,”. That was what was so fundamentally wrong.

The examples of the lack of integrity in the sector have really been the most appalling aspect of what has occurred, and although commentators rail against the failure to regulate fast enough, I have to ask the question of where the major exposés were that led people to be aware of the nature of the risk that they were facing. And the truth is that a lot of people in the media were silenced by threats of legal action from those who did not want to have the real risk exposed. So we are dealing with powerful organisations, well resourced, up against the little guy. In the case of the media, they are even able to prevent them from publicising the risk that people face.

I just wanted to say that because I did want a context for the legislation, and I just want to say what was objectionable about the ANZ-ING offer. It said this: “By accepting this Offer you agree to surrender, settle and release all other rights or claims you may have against certain parties in connection with the relevant Fund … including any claims or the extent of any claims of which you are not currently aware, and any claims brought on your behalf or for your benefit by another person. … It also means you are agreeing not to benefit from any claim made by any other person in connection with the Funds …”. A release disclosure document was annexed to the offer letter, and this contained a list of those covered by the release—ING, ANZ, New Zealand Guardian Trust, and every single one of the financial advisers who had advised on the investment in the fund—and referred specifically to investigations being undertaken by the Banking Ombudsman and the Commerce Commission. The question that was really raised for me was whether, as a matter of public policy, companies that may have transgressed the regulatory framework that is designed to protect investors should be allowed to make a settlement conditional on these terms.

So this is the question that this bill seeks to answer. It may not be the perfect answer, and there may be elements of it that the select committee would like to address. I am perfectly open to that. What I do want this House to do, though, is to refer it to the select committee so that these people who did not have their day in court can essentially have their day in court in front of the select committee.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very happy to stand and speak on this member’s bill, the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill, presented by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who was chair of the Commerce Committee in the last parliamentary term. It was a very good committee, which was able to work very well together. But before I come to what I want to say, I would like to say this. Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Whakanuitia Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us, the House. Celebrate Māori Language Week.]

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, that’s wrong.

JONATHAN YOUNG: It is very good to celebrate Māori Language Week. The honourable member across the way obviously feels that he is incredibly fluent and knows everything. I cannot wait to hear—I cannot wait to hear—him stand and greet us in Te Reo.

This bill was introduced by Lianne Dalziel in April 2010, perhaps at a time when there was a need for it, but perhaps there is not the need now, as she has commented on, because of the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011, which has come into place, and which established the Financial Markets Authority on 1 May 2011. The authority has been in operation for just over a year, and by all accounts, from what I hear in the sector, it is achieving very good results and has certainly been in this first year a well-respected authority, and able to bring through the regulation—and enforcement of those regulations, of course—that is necessary. National does not support this bill, because the Financial Markets Authority is doing a very good job of covering the aspects that the member has raised. The current law is sufficient to deal with the legitimacy or otherwise of legal settlements, and there is no need for legislative change.

The instance that the honourable member Hon Lianne Dalziel raised regarding the ING situation, of course, did take some considerable time and attention of the Commerce Committee. I believe that back in that time there was very genuine concern about the matters that the member raised. We were very pleased to be reported to by the Commerce Commission on the satisfactory resolution to the claims of people who had invested with ING. Indeed, the Commerce Commission acknowledged the cooperation of ANZ National Bank and ING throughout its investigation of that situation and the settlement discussions. The Commerce Commission was able, in its capacity, to bring through a resolution that it said was the biggest resolution, the most successful resolution, it has undertaken in its history. That does go to show that it was effective and brought quite a degree of satisfaction to those members of the ING Frozen Fund Group Trust.

The purpose for which the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill was drafted—and back in that time we acknowledge that there was genuine purpose—related to concerns over the compensation received by ING investors, and they have been resolved. We now have a situation where, through the Financial Markets Authority, we have a very good regulator, which is able to step into situations and bring some direction and some resolution. We also know that the corporate trustees that act as watchdogs in these issuer funds have progressed, in terms of the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Act, which came into force on 1 October 2011, whereby back at that time all current corporate trustees had to apply for a licence within 1 month of that enactment in order to receive a 1-year temporary licence.

So the supervision of the supervisors—the licence that they have to apply for to the Financial Markets Authority—brings in a regulatory system that we believe is more than adequate to meet the needs and the challenges and concerns that the member has raised. To the extent that the bill was drafted as a response to a problem, the action taken by regulators demonstrates that there was no such issue that required resolution, nor do we believe that this is a widespread issue that requires further legislation. We believe that matters, legislation, and regulation, and the enforcers of those regulations, are working very satisfactorily.

We also know that, for example, yesterday in this House two further commerce bills to strengthen our finance sector passed their first readings. These are coming to the Commerce Committee tomorrow. What one of them does, of course, is ensure that there is no opportunity for overseas people to set up New Zealand companies and use those for nefarious and criminal activities. That bill, the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill, is strengthening our robustness and ensuring that our reputation as a country stands up. Of course, the first reading of the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was also passed, so that we could ensure that there is integrity in terms of competition in this country.

Over these last few years the National-led Government has been working very strongly, under the initial leadership of the Hon Simon Power and now the leadership of the Hon Craig Foss, to bring some real robustness to our financial markets. Establishing that one-stop shop, the Financial Markets Authority, is the real kingpin that will bring a sharper focus on enforcing the law. Bringing that tighter oversight is absolutely necessary and essential, so that investors in this country can have confidence. With the financial companies’ collapses, which is what this bill is essentially looking at, in terms of some aspects of that—the contracting-out component, particularly—one of the things that that did, in terms of people losing their life-savings, is erode confidence. Look, we know that confidence is absolutely essential in order for investment to come into this country, so that business can have capital that would continue to see resources come to business and the market place.

So our considered opinion is that we already have in place legislation, we already have in place entities, and we already have in place changes to our legislative regulatory framework that are going to address all the issues that the honourable member’s bill is proposing. At this point in time I would commend the member for what she has done, and just say that she was a very good chair of that committee and obviously has a lot of experience, but we are not supporting this bill.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): The problem with the speech that we have just heard is that it is a record of a number of measures that have been passed or are under contemplation by the House that would absolutely improve our regulatory environment and confidence in the markets, but none of the measures listed by the member who has resumed his seat would address the particular problem that this bill, the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill, is aimed at.

I do ask members opposite to think carefully about their position on this legislation. It will not do to oppose it on the basis that we have just heard from Jonathan Young, because the problem that Lianne Dalziel has identified in respect of this bill could still happen under the current legislative framework. A corporate with a high degree of market power could still write, in the middle of an investigation by a regulator, to a group of investors who were out of pocket and say something like this: “By accepting this Offer you agree to surrender, settle and release all other rights or claims you may have against certain parties in connection with the relevant Fund … including any claims or the extent of any claims of which you are not currently aware, and any claims brought on your behalf or for your benefit by another person. … It also means you are agreeing not to benefit from any claim made by any other person in connection with the Funds ….”.

It should not be possible for a corporate to be able to write to individual mum and dad investors—that is a term that the other side is very fond of—in those terms in the middle of an investigation and be able to shut the investigation down, effectively, because the individual investors fear, quite justifiably, that if they do not agree, either they will get nothing or they will have to wait years and years and go through litigation and expense in order to recover what is their right. Even today, with the oversight of the Financial Markets Authority and with the improved regulatory framework in the finance area, which my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel began the process of putting in place—and I have to say she knows it as well as anybody I know, and knows it better than most—this sort of behaviour would still be possible.

I just want members opposite to bear in mind this: markets work effectively only where market failure is not allowed—where there is not allowed to be exerted a gross imbalance of power by those who are able to do it. All that Lianne Dalziel is trying to do by this measure—it is a considered measure, it is a carefully crafted measure, and it is a measure that she has given a lot of thought to based on her experience as a very successful and well-regarded Minister of Commerce, and, as Jonathan Young said, the well-regarded chair of the Commerce Committee of this House in the last term—is redress the imbalance that I have identified.

Jonathan Young, as I said, read out a list of legislation, most of which members on this side supported because it is good legislation. It carries on the institutional agenda that we began to try to strengthen confidence in the financial markets. But the fact remains that none of those provisions would remedy the evil that this bill is designed to remedy. None of those pieces of legislation would fix the problem that Lianne Dalziel has identified. I urge National Party members to reconsider their position on this legislation, because if they do not it is our duty to make sure that all those mum and dad investors who were out of pocket through exercises of grossly imbalanced market power, such as the one referred to in the explanatory note, understand who is on their side and who is not.

Please, members opposite, think carefully about this. You want to be on the side of decency. You want to be on the side of mum and dad investors. If that is the case, you will support this legislation.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 to expand the Act in order to exclude attempts to grant an individual distribution of any proceeds of any settlement to one individual of choice.

The collapse of the financial sector has been distressing for thousands of New Zealanders. Many lost part or all of their savings. Most New Zealanders know someone who has been affected by the collapse of financial institutions. The current law is sufficient to deal with legitimacy. This bill could be detrimental to New Zealanders and could deter settlement by the parties of civil disputes. Settlements provide parties with the ability to resolve disputes and to come to decisive conclusions, to the benefit of all concerned. The bill also avoids the prohibitive cost of taking settlements to court.

The National-led Government is focused on creating strong economies and improving the job market, which will, in turn, provide financial security to families. Strong capital markets provide a vital source of finance to help our businesses grow, thereby creating jobs. Yesterday two commerce bills were read for the first time that aim to strengthen our financial sectors. These were included in National’s 120-point economic development plan and are a priority for this Government. National will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi o te ahiahi ki a koutou. I am pleased to take a call to speak on the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill, and, indeed, to speak in support of what we believe is a useful and a still very necessary bill, despite the protestations of the Government speakers so far.

The Greens are not always persuaded that it is a good idea to resort to a legislative solution for a one-off event or one-off problem. Often you simply end up with the sound of stable doors slamming. You end up with legislation that is unnecessary—something that is trying to deal with a problem that has already passed. But as Mr Chauvel has already articulated, this is still a very live problem. The mischief that this bill seeks to remedy, to resolve, is still very much alive. The possibility is that we could once again see something along the lines of the ING-ANZ issue, or event. There is a very real possibility that the very uneven distribution of power could put us in a situation again where the well-being of the investment of large numbers of small investors is at risk and where those people are effectively obliged to gamble on what might be the outcome of a deal, essentially, being offered to them by a bank, by an insurance company, or by whatever the organisation may be.

We ought not to have to argue for the principle of avoiding a situation where people or organisations can contract out of their legal responsibilities. That principle, you would think, would be generally acknowledged. We see it in the Consumer Guarantees Act, where suppliers cannot contract out of their obligations to consumers. It is a different situation with trade relationships, clearly. But the key principle is that people cannot be obliged, or, even if they think they have contracted out, that there is a legal protection to avoid that happening. We see it in the Consumer Guarantees Act, as I have said. We see references to it in the Fair Trading Act—the extension of that being the unfortunate practice of people being persuaded to buy these quite valueless extended warranties, for example. There is a well-embedded legal principle of not allowing people to contract out of responsibility.

Effectively, that is all this bill seeks to do—to make a very minor amendment, albeit a significant one to a piece of legislation, so that people are no longer, as I say, at some future time put in a position where they might have to second-guess whether taking the deal that is currently on the table will leave them better or worse off than waiting for some legal process, some regulatory process, to work its way through and come to some sort of resolution.

Clearly, that statement would be opposed by those who might be on the other side of that equation. I was interested to note a newspaper article in the Otago Daily Times from the time when this bill was first presented. A gentleman from the ANZ, the managing director of private banking and wealth—a splendid title—was concerned about the so-called retrospective nature of this bill. He said that it might “create uncertainty for business if regulatory and legal requirements could be subject to change”. He said that “Under the bill there would be no incentive for parties to agree to out-of-court settlements, because agreements to settle disputes would never be full and final”. That is all very well, but it rather overlooks the fact that this situation only occurred in a case of what was, at best, gross negligence and, in fact—as was described earlier—was the failure of a company entrusted with people’s investments to operate to an appropriate legal or, indeed, ethical standard. The best protection for companies holding investments against being taken to task in this sort of thing is simply to act legally, responsibly, and ethically in these cases. The notion that this would somehow disadvantage the large corporate organisations is simply laughable, in fact.

The Frozen Funds Group Trust, or movement, if you like, was commented on. I think its website has some interesting and useful information. I think that as the campaign quite rightly states on its website, which is now effectively an historic item: “The campaign shows what a small group of committed people can achieve.” I think that passing this legislation would be something of a legacy for that small group of people who did stand up for their rights, and who worked very hard and fought very hard to get a reasonable outcome out of the situation.

We support this bill and would encourage others to do so. Kia ora.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am pleased to take a call on the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel and the motivation behind this bill. However, the purpose of this bill as drafted has been resolved. It is apparent that the current laws are sufficient to deal with the legitimacy or otherwise of legal settlements, meaning there is no need for legislative change. I would like to draw attention to section 4 of the Securities Act and clause 15 of the Financial Markets Conduct Bill. I will go to the Financial Markets Conduct Bill, clause 15. I will not read the whole thing, but it states: “A provision of an agreement or a deed is void if it provides that a party to the agreement or deed is—(a) required or bound to waive compliance with any requirement of this Act or the regulations; or (b) taken to have notice of any agreement, document, or matter not specifically referred to in the relevant disclosure document (if any).” Both of these regulations have been drafted to prevent persons seeking to contract out of New Zealand securities legislation, which provides additional reassurance.

It is possible that this bill could be harmful also, as it could discourage settlement in civil disputes, which could lead to uncertainty, cost, delay, and having to take disputes to court. There is also concern that the bill may cause harm by creating an impression that such contracts were not, in any event, already illegal.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to some of the great work this Government is doing in restoring confidence in the finance sector. I would need an hour to go into the achievements by the Government in this area, but here are just a couple of them: the creation of the Financial Markets Authority, which is a one-stop shop that has a sharp and clear focus on enforcing the law; cracking down on loan sharks; and combating anti-competitive behaviour such as price fixing. As part of the Government’s plan for economic growth—

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

MARK MITCHELL: I have listened closely to the Hon Lianne Dalziel, and, like I say, I commend her and understand the motivation behind the development of the bill. I would like to just come back—I thought I had run out of time, but seeing as how I do have the time, I would just like to come back—and point out another safeguard through regulation. That is through the Securities Act 1978. I go to section 4(2), which is: “A condition of any agreement requiring or binding an applicant for securities to waive compliance with any requirement of this Act, or purporting to affect him or her with notice of any contract, document, or matter relating to the securities that is not specifically referred to in a prospectus or registered prospectus, shall be void.” So this, combined with the Financial Markets Conduct Bill, provides a good safety net and puts protection in place, and comes back to the point that, really, this bill of the Hon Lianne Dalziel is now redundant.

I would just like to finish by saying that the Government has already started to put in place a very, very good programme to make sure that there is actually confidence put back into our financial markets and our capital markets, and confidence is beginning to be restored. I just want to thank you for giving me the chance to speak to this bill. Thank you very much.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill going to the Commerce Committee and congratulates Lianne Dalziel on bringing it forward. The problem addressed by the bill is a matter that has needed to be addressed for some time and has had a very significantly adverse effect on a large number of people. I am very disappointed to hear of National members’ opposition to the bill, because they are effectively opposing the needs of the elderly people and mum and dad investors whom they claim to support. New Zealand First, on the other hand, is always very keen to support the elderly and mum and dad investors in particular, and this is one of the ways in which that can be done.

The provisions of the ING-ANZ settlement concerning the Frozen Funds Group, which gave rise to this bill, were utterly deplorable. It amounted to nothing more than bullying people into accepting settlements with excessive and unethical provisions, using their unequal bargaining power to achieve that. That is something that this House should take particular notice of. The behaviour of ING in this matter demonstrated the need for tighter regulation of the whole industry, and that did result in the 2011 legislation relating to the Financial Markets Authority, but this bill is still needed, and that is the point that my friends on the other side of the House do not seem to have grasped. They need to have a look at it again.

This bill addresses a specific problem, which I have already referred to, and it needs particular attention. Simon O’Connor, in talking to the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, referred to efficiency and to tidy legislation. This is one of those issues that do need to be tidied up. It is not solved by disputes resolution procedures or anything of the kind. The practice complained of needs to be made clearly illegal.

In the circumstances of the ING case, the general release clause of the kind investors were required to sign to obtain the benefits of the settlement was objectionable, especially the words: “including any claims or the extent of any claims of which you are not currently aware, and any claims brought on your behalf or for your benefit by another person.” So any claim or right arising as a result of the Commerce Commission inquiry would have been avoided, and any benefit arising indirectly by the action of another investor would also be avoided. That is not proper and needs to be made illegal. These provisions are nothing more than trickery and they should not be allowed. The bill declares such provisions to be illegal under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970, and rightly so. It is exactly the legislation that we need to address this issue.

I would like to also comment on the commencement date. Although New Zealand First normally opposes retrospective legislation, we would in this case approve the 10 July 2009 commencement date in the circumstances of the particular case that I have referred to, and in relation to the matters that gave rise to the problem to be corrected by this bill in the first place. If there is to be a debate about the place this bill has in the regime of protections for investors, then the correct place to have that debate in that sort of detail is the select committee, not this House. In fact, if you reflect upon the relatively lightweight debate that we have heard from the other side, then you would have to say that there is no possible way they could properly vote against this bill, based on what they have said so far.

What I would respect and what New Zealanders would respect is National members changing their position, turning up at the select committee, debating the detail of the bill properly, and then reaching a decision. I and other New Zealanders could accept that. But what we cannot understand is why, based on the actually frivolous, I think, arguments that have so far been put forward—there is no possible way that anyone could have respect for a conclusion based on that level of debate.

So I would really encourage my friends on the opposite benches to have another look at this bill, at least let it go to the select committee, debate it properly, and then make a decision—and that is fair enough. For all of those reasons, New Zealand First says that we must allow this bill to go to the select committee, and we support it for that reason.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It gives me pleasure to speak on this bill, the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I congratulate Miss Dalziel not only on having the bill drawn from the ballot but also on drafting it up and bringing it before the House. I previously have had the luck of having a bill drawn from the ballot and, a couple of weeks ago, a second one, so I know how difficult it is for this to happen and sometimes a little bit of luck is what is needed. Can I also say to Miss Dalziel that I believe she has put this legislation together with good intent. Therefore, I just want to recognise that, and I know that she has thought long and hard about this.

Others in the debate have made a number of points from our side of the House, which I will not go over in great detail, but I say only that when Miss Dalziel first drafted this legislation there probably was a problem that existed. Certainly, many of us were contacted, received emails, and so on from constituents and others who were going through a very difficult process with the ING organisation regarding their frozen funds. Since then we have had legislation that has come through the Parliament, which has entered the place, and I do believe it addresses this issue. That is one of the main reasons why on our side of the House we will not be supporting this bill.

What I would say to other members who have asked the Government to reverse its position and send this bill to a select committee so that we can have an ongoing debate with New Zealanders about this is that, actually, when it comes to members’ bills and many other bills that come before the House, parties have positions, and we do not always send bills to select committees. Indeed, my first member’s bill was not sent to a select committee, even though I think it was an issue that New Zealanders might have wanted to have a say on. So I respect that parties do have different positions, and we do not always send these bills on. In this case, therefore, it is difficult for us to sit and hear that we should do that just so that others can have a say.

One of the great things about this Parliament is its ability to talk about issues and to debate them, and it takes a majority in this House to decide whether we will go further. Unfortunately here today we have decided that this bill is not something we would support. The intention I do recognise is a very good intention and, as I said earlier, I recognise that Miss Dalziel brings this here with good intent. But it is our opinion that the issue has been dealt with in previous legislation. Therefore, it is probably not something that needs to take extra time of the House or of a select committee. Thank you.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): It is a great pleasure to take a call to support the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s member’s bill, the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill. Actually, it reminds me of the good old days when Ms Dalziel chaired the Commerce Committee, of which I was a member. Ms Dalziel was a good chair. Many have acknowledged that she was a good Minister, and will be a Minister again in 2014.

I would like also to acknowledge another former member of the Commerce Committee, the Hon John Boscawen, and thank him for his support of this important bill. Mr Boscawen has, obviously, some unfinished business with regard to this important bill. In his speech to the ING Frozen Funds Group Trust in Napier in March 2010 he said he would be working hard to convince his four other ACT colleagues to also support this bill to its first reading. I am not quite sure what is on the mind of the current ACT member, the Hon John Banks, nor am I sure whether Mr Boscawen’s position has any influence on the current ACT Party.

I would like also to thank the Frozen Funds Group Trust. Going back to the days of Commerce Committee of the 49th Parliament, the interest of its members in this particular issue was heightened with every new issue of their newsletter. Although the settlement the members of the group received from ING was far short of their expectations, like Mr Boscawen has said, the settlement may never have happened had it not been for their dedicated commitment to that task and, in Mr Boscawen’s words, “the military style nation-wide organisation” with more than a dozen branches throughout New Zealand.

Much has been reported in the media of individuals facing financial ruin as a result of an investment decision in those finance companies. For those largely mum and dad investors a lack of knowledge about the nature of the risk they had been exposed to was one of the main factors. From the perspective of the finance companies, I agree that in some instances the losses incurred have resulted from a dramatic change in the world markets and also a fall in property values, which honest directors could not reasonably foresee. But the media reports are never short of examples of the lack of integrity in those finance companies and in the sector. Mismanagement, inadequate disclosure, hidden and excessive commissions for financial advisers, and, in some cases, blatant fraud, etc. were all contributing factors. On the other hand, inadequate regulation and the failure to enforce that regulation have also been vital contributing factors.

Therefore, the purpose of this bill is to seek justice for everyone who invested in the two frozen funds, and to increase protection for future investors. The bill amends the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 to extend the coverage of that Act to make it unlawful to limit the power of regulators such as the Commerce Commission to award a remedy or distribute the proceeds of any settlement or court order to any individual. The issue arose from the ING settlement, where investors with money caught up in those funds were forced to sign away their rights from gaining any benefit from someone else taking action against ING, including the regulator. I have no problem with the company making a settlement conditional on not proceeding with a civil course of action, but this case was being investigated by the Commerce Commission at the time, and the Commerce Commission was included in the release. Allowing such a provision to stand would effectively prevent the Commerce Commission from fulfilling its role of upholding rules that are designed to protect investors. So the bill does have a retrospective aspect whereby they are found to be in breach of their legal responsibilities to their investors.

As a matter of public policy and of protecting the interests of the investor, I commend the bill to the House.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in this debate as it draws to a close. The Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel is, as my colleague Todd McClay said earlier, a worthy and justifiable piece of legislation to be introduced, except that, as with many things in politics, timing and luck are actually quite important. This is a piece of legislation in its draft bill form that has, in fact, had its time and has been and gone. What has emerged in the time since the meltdown of ING is that this John Key - National Government has, in fact, taken a very strong position in determining that our capital markets should be strong, and that the regulatory environment in which our capital markets operate should be strong and well respected. Indeed, we have seen two pieces of legislation introduced into this House in the last 48 hours or so that have gone further to strengthen that position. Strong capital markets are, indeed, important to us all.

The current law is sufficient to deal with the legitimacy or otherwise of the legal settlements. Indeed, the mover in her opening introductory comments said—and I just wrote them down as she said them—that the need for this bill has diminished. Well, I would suggest to you that in fact the need for this bill has diminished to a point where it is absolutely no longer required at all. She went on further to say that the bill may not be a perfect answer. I would suggest, indeed, that she is quite right; it is not a perfect answer. Indeed, it is an answer that is no longer required at all.

To the extent that the bill was drafted in response to a particular situation, which arose as a result of the ING frozen fund situation, it caused a great number of New Zealand investors enormous concern and heartache at the time. Indeed, the whole financial crisis of the time created a situation for many New Zealanders where their life savings were diminished and, in some cases, completely done away with. Of course, that is not a situation that anybody would want, let alone a Government. So how did we respond to that as a responsible, coherent, and caring Government? Well, we introduced legislation that ensured that our regulatory environment would be protected and strengthened. As part of our 120-point economic plan, we have been focused, terrifically, on these sorts of matters. It is our priority to, of course, build a more competitive economy, a bolder, brighter, and stronger economy. What we have done is ensure that everything is put in place and we have attempted, of course, to provide restored confidence in the financial sector, because it is restored confidence that will give New Zealand investors an opportunity, with real strength of confidence, to invest again. They have not had that for a long period of time, so we are very focused on that.

We have tightened the oversight of those working in the financial market sector, and they now operate in a regulatory regime that is going to be very, very strict in terms of what they can do and how they process their transactions. One of the things that we have done is remove the barriers to trans-Tasman business and progressed legislation that will enable us to meet our single economic market achievements with Australia. We have rewritten a 33-year-old securities law, leading to the Financial Markets Conduct Bill. Those are just some of the measures that we have taken as a responsible and caring Government to ensure that our regulatory environment is robust and strong, and that is one of the reasons why we will not be supporting this first reading.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I am very disappointed that the National Government has adopted a position in opposition to a bill, the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill, because its members had been advised by their research unit notes that the problem is all fixed, because the problem is not all fixed. It was very interesting that that was the case with every single member of the National Government who spoke, with perhaps the exception of Jonathan Young, who sat on the select committee that heard all of the evidence that was presented in relation to the finance company failures and that heard from people who had lost money in the ANZ and ING debacle, which should never have been allowed to occur in this country. People will reflect, I think for a long time, on the behaviour of a number of the people involved. But let me just say that he at least understood what it was that the bill was designed to do, because he was not sticking to prepared notes.

The truth is that Government members have been told that the legislation is no longer necessary because it is fixed with the new requirements that say that a provision of an agreement or a deed is void if it provides that a party to the agreement or deed is required or bound to waive compliance with any requirement of this Act or the regulations. That is not what people were required to do.

In fact, the way that the group that was established at the time described it was that they said the offer’s condition was that customers would surrender their right of legal recourse against ING, ANZ, or their financial advisers. Customers also lost their right to benefit if the Commerce Commission had found ANZ or ING breached fair trade. The Frozen Funds Group Trust has called this a form of blackmail. And actually it was, because there was nothing else. They had to accept the offer, or the offer came off the table. It expired at midnight on a particular day, and that was the end of the offer. So they had no choice but to accept the offer, and the condition was that if there was a breach of the rules that apply under fair trading with the Commerce Commission, if the Banking Ombudsman were to make a ruling that was generally applicable, then you would get no benefit from it. You had to rescind that right.

The problem that I have with that is simply this—and there is no problem with making the settlement conditional on not proceeding with a civil course of action; I have got no problems with that. In fact, that was an issue that came up as well. That occurs every day. We give up something in order to get something. In fact, the settlement with the Commerce Commission was so that it did not take them to court for their blatant breach of the Fair Trading Act. But where a regulator has identified that there has been a breach of the rules that were designed themselves to protect investors, then no agreement that in any way undermines the authority of that regulator should be allowed to stand. It should be illegal. That is why I chose that particular model of the change to the Illegal Contracts Act.

I know that the Financial Markets Conduct Bill is in front of the Commerce Committee at the moment. There is no harm in sending this bill to that select committee so that they could make sure that they get that clause of the legislation into shape, where it would actually protect people from being blackmailed in this way in the future. I think that that would have been a reasonable outcome, instead of having a predetermined position, coming to the House, and actually arguing a point of view that was not substantiated by the legislation that they were referring to. I think it is a disappointment because this was a chance for the Government to set aside, perhaps, the politics of the situation.

In fact, when I was the chair of the select committee I can say without a shadow of reflection that we worked really well together on both sides of the House—with the Greens, as well—in order to achieve some good outcomes in relation to the financial regulation that we started and that National continued on. I believe that this was an example of a bill where the Government has simply just misunderstood that there is a gap in the legislation that needs to be filled. This was a bill that could have filled that gap, and I make a last-minute plea to the Government: please support it to the select committee. At least we can resolve the differences there.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill

First Reading

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.

In Māori Language Week I want to start with the profound Māori proverb “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata”—what is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. That proverb describes the basic principle behind the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, which I bring to Parliament today.

New Zealand can be the best place in the world to raise children. That is the vision that Labour has for this country, and that is the origin for this bill, which I drafted in 2009. It is a lofty and ambitious vision, but it is achievable in a peaceful country like New Zealand because we are not war-torn, we do not suffer from famine and drought, and just look at the natural riches and resources we have. We really do have a head start in making this a reality. We really can be the best country in the world to raise children, but it seems National does not like that idea, at all.

There are many things that we need to do in New Zealand to fulfil that vision.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where’s the money coming from?

SUE MORONEY: If Mr Smith would like to listen, I am talking about a vision. I am talking about a vision that I know he cannot get, but he should listen. We will not get there unless we are prepared to put children at the heart of our policy making, unless we decide to prioritise investment in those early years—that is right, I say to Mr Smith, and to the rest of the National members—and unless we make an investment in those early years. That is what my bill calls for. Extending paid parental leave is just one measure that the Government can take to invest wisely in those early years.

This bill proposes extending paid parental leave by 12 weeks, to reach 6 months over the course of the next 3 years. It is Labour policy to reach 12 months’ paid parental leave over time, but I have drafted my bill with this global recession in mind. This bill stages the introduction of extended paid parental leave over the next 3 years, and the good news is it does not reach full implementation until National—National itself—says that it will have the country’s books back into surplus, in 2015. That is still the plan, is it not? Is that still the plan? Nick Smith is not sure that that is still the plan. But I tell you, there is an old saying “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”, and that is so very true of paid parental leave, but it does require the political will to do so.

I said at the outset, when my bill was drawn, that all political parties say that families are a priority, but how parties vote on my bill will show whether they really mean it or not. At the end of this debate it will be demonstrated for all to see.

This bill does not require the Government to borrow any more money for paid parental leave. Instead, it should be funded by reprioritising other spending. My personal favourite would be the cancelling of tax cuts for those earning over $150,000, which would more than fund this initiative. But I would also—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is that Labour policy?

SUE MORONEY: It is, indeed, Labour policy. It is, indeed, Labour policy. But I would also settle for cancelling the $1.76 billion construction of the “Holiday Highway” north of Auckland, where traffic volumes do not warrant the spend; the money being paid to investment bankers for advice on privatising our profitable State assets; the millions being squandered on flawed restructuring plans like the one for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; or the millions being spent on designing ghost roads—any of those would do. My point is that investing in paid parental leave is affordable, if there were the will from this Government to do so, but the National Government has other, bad, spending priorities.

Ironically, the day National threatened to use a financial veto against families needing extended paid parental leave, National also announced that it was keeping agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme for longer. The cost to the taxpayer of that decision alone is estimated to be $400 million. That decision alone would pay for extended paid parental leave, with plenty of change for other worthy investments. But there was no mention of a financial veto when it came to that decision, was there? Why does National insist that it would have to borrow to pay for extended paid parental leave when it can make a decision costing the taxpayer $400 million, at the height of a global recession, with apparently no further borrowing? Answer that question, Mr Smith, for us. This Government’s priorities were spelt out loud and clear on that day in April. It has money to incentivise farmers to pollute for longer, but not for hard-working families raising our next generation.

But here is the real clanger: the Minister of Finance, Bill English, even stooped to heavily inflating the cost of my bill when he threatened a financial veto on it. That is how strongly National opposes supporting families in this way. He claimed it would cost $500 million, but he had received official advice that the most it would cost would be $285.6 million over 3 years. He almost doubled the cost of it, to justify using a financial veto.

Working families deserve a fair go. They do not deserve a Minister of Finance who makes up figures to use against them and their needs. But, then, he is the same Minister who had Treasury work out the cuts to education in the form of increased class sizes. He was out of step with the needs of families then, and he and his party are out of step with them again now.

The same week my bill was drawn out of the ballot, the Government decided it would spend an additional $11 million on adolescent mental health services—fair enough. Sadly, there are more of our young people needing those services. It was interesting, though, that there was no hand-wringing over having to borrow money to afford that. But here is the question I want to pose: how much better off would our young people be, and how much would the rest of us get to save, if we invested money in their early years instead?

The Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, had this to say on the subject: “The early years of life have a unique and formative impact on child health, development and relationships throughout life. Secure mother-infant attachment is an important predictor of resilience in later life including high self-esteem, reduced anxiety and reduced hormonal responses to stress.” He went on to say: “Social investment in New Zealand should take more account of the growing evidence that prevention and intervention strategies applied early in life are more effective in altering outcomes and reap more economic returns over the life course than do … strategies applied later. This will require long-term commitment to appropriate policies and programmes.” If only the Prime Minister would listen to his Chief Science Advisor.

There are now several pieces of research showing that for every dollar invested in supporting children and their families in those early years, the rest of us get to save $12 to $17. I come from a horse-racing background, and I know the odds of getting back at least $12 for every $1 invested. That is what I would call a dead cert—that is a dead cert.

Researchers and scientists like Sir Peter Gluckman know that if we get it right in those early months and years, then we do not have to spend as much money on remedial education, on health problems, or on youth justice, for that matter. But making that smart investment requires a Government with vision. It requires a Government with courage and a real commitment to a brighter future. Tonight Labour is stepping up to show the leadership required for that type of Government—a Government that understands the stresses on working families, a Government that really does have a plan for the future, a Government that is fiscally responsible, one that promotes more choice for families, and a Government that puts children ahead of tax cuts for high-income earners.

Extending paid parental leave has gained broad support from the community, and I think this demonstrates significant progress since the bill was introduced by a Labour-led Government. Tomorrow a coalition of community organisations will be launched in support of extending paid parental leave. It is called 26 for Babies. It involves organisations like Plunket, Every Child Counts, the Council of Trade Unions, Unicef, and the Breastfeeding Authority. I have heard from grandparents, from older parents, from younger parents, from those contemplating parenthood, and from those who were once babies themselves—that is right; everyone has got a stake in getting this right.

Both unions and business representatives support the extending of paid parental leave, and I was very pleased to hear public declarations of support in principle from both Phil O’Reilly of Business New Zealand and Michael Barnett of the Auckland chamber of commerce. It demonstrates the growing recognition of the value of women in the workplace by employers, and that is not before time.

In fact, the 2006 evaluation of our paid parental leave scheme noted that there is widespread support amongst mothers, fathers, and employers for paid parental leave. And just last week the United Nations chastised the New Zealand Government and the Minister of Women’s Affairs, Jo Goodhew, for our low level of paid parental leave, as part of the UN’s concerns about discrimination against women in New Zealand. We ranked second to last in the developed world for the duration of the paid parental leave we offer. Only the United States is below us, because it has none at all. Australia used to be below us, but in January last year it introduced 18 weeks’ paid parental leave.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Ten seconds to complete.

SUE MORONEY: Ten seconds. In my maiden speech in Parliament I said I wanted to improve work-life balance for New Zealand families—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time is up. [Interruption] Order!

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually probably should have called a point of order during my speech. The barracking from that side of the House—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please sit. Members know that when points of order are taken, they should be taken at the time. I gave the member some generosity over her time, so when I call that the time has gone beyond, the member should sit immediately.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister of Women’s Affairs): Tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Let me begin, in speaking to this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, by asserting that the Government supports parents being able to look after their children. What is more, we spent $157 million on providing the current 14 weeks’ paid parental leave in the 2011-12 year.

I understand completely why community groups will express tomorrow—and have already expressed—their support for paid parental leave, but, equally, at the same time as they will say that they support it, those same groups have a sense of understanding of the tight fiscal constraints that this Government is in at the moment. That is why we are still seeing such strong support in the polls for the options that this National Government is taking, not the continual string of “Let’s spend on this, let’s spend on that, let’s spend on something else.” Just because it is a good idea does not mean that the money is magicked up out of fresh air to deliver it. We are concerned at the financial implications of nearly doubling the amount of paid parental leave, which has been proposed in this bill.

This National Government is completely focused on responsibly managing the Government’s finances. It is a pity that the previous Labour Government did not do the same for the 9 years that it was in Government. We want to get back to surplus. We want to get debt under control. And what seems anathema to the other side is that you just cannot spend what you have not got, without going into more debt and placing the responsibility for getting rid of that debt on to the generations to come. It is a choice we have made, a choice we can live with, and a choice that we believe our grandchildren will live with as well.

We have been dealing with the biggest deficit New Zealand has ever had. It is too soon for the determinations to be made about what new entitlements will be offered when we get back to surplus. I am going to focus on our priorities, which will demonstrate that this Government has a strong commitment to children and families, as well. So that side should never accuse us of anything less. Go on, get on your hind legs. My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker—not you, of course.

We have worked hard during the last 3½ years, through a large recession, to preserve income and support to families. We have—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am having extreme difficulty hearing the member. I would just ask members to contain themselves, somewhat.

Hon JO GOODHEW: It is great to see the others on the other side are alive and well. We have increased the maximum paid parental leave payment by $67 a week since taking office. On 1 July this year the maximum parental leave payment available to eligible employees and the self-employed increased from $458.22 to $475.16 a week. The minimum parental leave payment for the self-employed also increased. Employees with at least 12 months’ continuous service with their employer are also entitled to up to 52 weeks of employment-protected, unpaid parental leave, less any paid parental leave taken. This can be shared between eligible spouses and partners. Up to 2 weeks of unpaid partner’s paternity leave is also available.

I believe it is very important that I describe this, because this is about what the scheme currently offers. I would also like to reflect on some work that is currently being undertaken—some conversations I have had with members of the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust. They tell us that it is all very well to have paid parental leave, but the important thing about paid parental leave is that it has to be managed in a way that supports the reintegration of that person back into the workforce. It is not just about the money, actually. It is about feeling valued in the workforce. So when the employer goes out of their way to make that person feel supported, there is much more chance—irrespective of how much paid parental leave there is—that they will return to the workforce. That is about flexibility and staging re-entry to the workforce. That is about encouragement, support, and, again, I say, flexibility. That, in fact, will gain more than just chucking more money at it, but then chucking more money at it is certainly something the other side of the House is familiar with. And, boy, are their promises mounting up.

We are continually improving the Working for Families scheme, which offers tax credits to help families get ahead. We are committed to providing better health-care for families, including free after-hours general practitioner visits for under-sixes, and delivering record rates of immunisations for under-twos. Again, what might that look like? Children at the heart of policy is what that looks like. We have provided $54 million to boost maternity services to support new parents. What might that look like? Children at the heart of policy—children and families. PlunketLine is fully funded 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to support new parents. Did that happen under the previous Government? No, that happened under this National Government. Labour cut PlunketLine. There has been a 34 percent increase in early childhood education funding since 2008. The Government spent $1.4 billion on early childhood education.

One of the things that I learnt when I was overseas last week is the unenviable, the absolute—[Interruption] Last week, when I was away, I was made aware of what an incredible record this country has for the provision of early childhood education—95 percent of New Zealand’s children have been engaged in early childhood education prior to going to school. And, we, the National Government, have set a target of 98 percent. The UN committee could not believe that a Government would show such commitment to early childhood education. [Interruption] The other side of the House are hating that a lot; they certainly are. We have set aside an extra $19.1 million over 4 years to support Māori-medium early childhood education services.

The money that this Government has prioritised is prioritised into those who need it the most. The best bang for buck in terms of early childhood education spend is on the children who do not currently get any—that is nil; no early childhood education. The best bang for buck will be there. That is why we have allocated $18.9 million for 1,039 new places in high-need areas. New Zealand has a proud record in regard to early childhood education.

I want to move on to the Labour Party’s costings. The phased policy in this bill would cost $450 million extra over its first 4 years. Labour’s own costings: an extra $50 million in the first year, $100 million on top of that in the second year, and $150 million more in each of the third and fourth years. We do not have that money. New Zealanders know we do not have that money. The dangers of running up high deficits through unaffordable government are simply not worth it.

The leader of the Labour Party, David Shearer, promised to run a thrifty Government if elected. Actually, this is not a good way to get started, Mr Shearer. In 2007 the Families Commission gave Ruth Dyson, then Minister of Labour, a report that recommended paid parental leave provisions be increased to 13 months by 2015, including a month for fathers. Labour did not do anything with that. But now those members sit on the other side of the House and berate us. I believe that I have demonstrated, and I know other members on this side will continue to demonstrate, that children are at the centre of our policy, and we have put our money where our mouth is. We cannot afford this policy at the moment, and therefore we are putting money into other things that we believe will benefit children and the families of New Zealand.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We come to the 5-minute calls.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to come back to a member of this House who has a true focus on women, on children, and on families—I want to pay tribute to Sue Moroney. This would be one of the first occasions I have stood up in this House and felt truly proud to speak to a bill and a policy that I think will contribute to children and to the betterment of their families, and I thank Sue for being the champion of the bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I think she demonstrates her and Labour’s belief in, and focus on, children. Our vision is that New Zealand not only be the best place in the world for children to grow up but also the best place in the world to be a child, and that is key to our vision.

What did we hear from that side of the House, from the Minister of Women’s Affairs? Her vision, during Sue Moroney’s speech, amounted to her yelling across the House “Will you mine?”. That was the interjection we heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs: “Will you mine?”. The Minister of Women’s Affairs is essentially asking us the question, coal or children? Well, I have an answer for that Minister, and my answer is this: stop subsidising heavy polluters and we can back kids; build one less road of national significance that we do not need and we can help kids and their families. This Government has proven that its priority is not children. It has proven it time and time again. To hear the Minister of Women’s Affairs stand up and justify the Government’s position that it will not invest in children was absolutely appalling. It was shallow, to say the least.

According to the OECD, New Zealand spends roughly 50 percent of the OECD average on kids. Primarily that is because of the money that goes unspent on the early years. Changing our paid parental leave would go a long way to addressing that deficit. But it is not just about investing in paid parental leave because that is what families have told us they want; it is also about the evidence. Sue spoke strongly to that evidence, but I just want to reiterate it. The first 6 months are known to be the most crucial period of a child’s development that we could possibly invest in.

Hon Tau Henare: You don’t say!

JACINDA ARDERN: Tau Henare points out “You don’t say!”. Do something about it is what I say to the Government. You have got the evidence. Listen to your own Chief Science Advisor and do something about it. The WHO has told us that it is not only about necessity, trying to encourage and assist women to breastfeed, but also about attachment. We have seen more and more that attachment disorder is something that we, as taxpayers, are picking up later on in service provision. We have heard that conduct disorder, in itself, costs up to a million dollars across the course of a child’s life. Those first 6 months are crucial.

This policy is about investing to save, so you would have thought we would hear something about it in the policies of the Minister for Social Development on the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. Well, one thing that you do not hear the Minister talk about is the fact that, in reality, all children are, by default, vulnerable, particularly in their very, very early stages, and that some universal policies pay extraordinary dividends. Paid parental leave is in that boat and so is early childhood education, and the Minister of Women’s Affairs feels content to talk about the importance of that, even though that Government cut early childhood education spending—blatantly. Now, it refuses to budge on this. They tell me that that is investment in children in their critical years. Well, all of the evidence sits counter to that.

John Key himself has acknowledged that we are no longer giving families the choices about caring for their own children. We are in a race to the bottom in New Zealand for our families. We have a chance to turn that round. In fact, the evidence that has come out of the Growing Up in New Zealand survey demonstrates that 87.4 percent of women took paid parental leave when they had their newborn. After that, they then started taking other mixtures of leave—unpaid leave, holiday leave, sick leave—because it was so important to them that they be able to stay at home with their child in those early months.

There is a better way. Sue Moroney and Labour have presented that to the House today. The fact that that Government will not support it shows its vision for children, and shows that Labour will put children at the heart of its policy.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe e te Kaiwhakawā. Me mihi au ki te Whare nei.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. My acknowledgments to this House.]

I am pleased to stand in opposition to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to go through it with some quite clear reasons. I do want to be very clear from the outset of this debate that this is not a debate about the merits of paid parental leave. This is not a debate about whether this Government has children at the heart of its interests. This is not a debate about our commitment to children—it is absolutely not. I want to go through that in quite a lot of detail.

It is kind of interesting that the member who has had this bill drawn from the ballot has been a member of Parliament for 7 years now—3 of those in Government. So if this bill was so important, if it was her one sole purpose for being, I am highly surprised that it has become such a priority now, 7 years later, when Labour is in Opposition. But, you know, I think that is part of existence on “Planet Labour”. Labour does the most important things when it is in Opposition—or at least it can promise them, because it does not have to pay for them. That is what happens on “Planet Labour”, because money grows on trees.

National is focused on responsibly managing the Government’s finances. We have children at the heart of our interests. One of the things we are committed to not doing is leaving our children and grandchildren with mountains and mountains and generations of debt, which is what that side of the House is happy to do. This side of the House has more interest in making sure that we do have an economy that is managed responsibly.

Given that a previous speaker made some comparisons with other countries, I thought it was worth touching on where the other countries sit with this currently. There are countries that have longer paid parental leave entitlements than New Zealand’s. Portugal has 17 weeks, Italy has 5 months, Greece has 17 weeks, and Spain has 16 weeks. I think those countries would be familiar to more than a few of us in the House and those listening, and the disastrous economies that they are running currently. It is an example of some of the Governments’ spending that is not sustainable. There are actually some countries that are currently looking at cutting their paid parental leave—they are looking at cutting their paid parental leave. This Government is protecting the existing entitlements. Even Germany, which is one of the stronger economies in Europe, has had to make savings in its paid parental leave entitlements. So it is not something that is unique for us.

We have been protecting the interests of parents in New Zealand. The Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Hon Jo Goodhew, spoke about the array of things that this Government is doing in terms of investing in children. That side of the House might not be interested in listening, but there is a significant amount of work that we have done. I do not think that it should be belittled that in these difficult economic times we should be protecting entitlements. I want to give you an example. When paid parental leave was introduced in 2002 the uptake exceeded predictions. Some would say that is a good thing—absolutely. But the difficulty is it is yet another example of a spending programme that Labour introduced with no reality in terms of what the financial cost would be. It increased 175 percent between 2003 and 2010. So there was a 175 percent increase and only 14 percent more babies.

I am proud to be a working mother. I was staggered to hear Labour member Mr Prasad, in a debate last week, basically imply that mothers were not capable of doing two things at once. In the debate on the social security bill that member suggested it was too difficult for mothers to work and that it was hard on their children. Well, this side of the House believes that women are capable of doing more. The Minister of Women’s Affairs has given you our record, and so I am more than proud to say that we are opposing this piece of legislation. We are managing the economy in a strong and sensible way. We are protecting our children, supporting our families, and making our communities stronger. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou ki te Whare. The Greens will be supporting this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Our policy is for 13 months’ paid parental leave, and this bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks is a good start in progressing that. If we are going to look at where we are going, we should look at where we have been. The provision of 1 year’s unpaid parental leave was introduced in 1987, and it was a major breakthrough for families. Although it was not paid, it meant that, if they could afford to, a parent could take a year off to be with their child and be assured of having the same job there when they came back. That is the crux of the matter: being able to afford to take time off to have your children and have enough time to bond with them. The State sector at that time tended to lead on good employment practices, and it still does, and I hope that it continues to do so. It had some provisions for paid leave during that time.

It was not until 2002 that the Labour-Alliance Government, with the then Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Hon Laila Harré, introduced the first provisions for 12 weeks’ paid parental leave. By 2006 that had extended to 14 weeks of paid leave. Since 2002 an estimated 190,000 people, mostly mothers, have accessed those 12 or 14 weeks of paid leave. Looking at the trend over the last few years, more people every year are using it. Its introduction has gone some way towards easing the financial shock that happens when a newborn enters the family and the income of the parents plummets. I remember my own experience when my son was born in 1994. His father and I shared 12 months of unpaid leave, and, as well as adjusting to the new circumstances of having a helpless infant that we were responsible for, we also had to manage halving our income. We extended the mortgage to cover that time off.

Today we are hearing the same arguments against 20 weeks’ paid parental leave that we heard back in the 1990s—that we cannot afford it. That was the same argument that we heard in the 1970s about equal pay. We got those measures introduced, and guess what? The economy did not grind to a halt. The country did not go broke, and the sky did not fall in. We have become so used to thinking in the short term that we no longer think of the long-term benefits. These long-term benefits will outweigh the costs.

There is no doubt that 26 weeks’ leave is good for babies. The World Health Organization recommends 6 months’ breastfeeding as a way of improving and ensuring physical and emotional health for the child. Kids who have a parent at home in their first year or so actually have better cognition and fewer behavioural problems as they grow up. That child-parent attachment is critical to the child’s longer-term prospects. That child-parent attachment leads to less abuse, and less neglect of children. That is the cost that we all bear as a society. We must create healthy, strong families as soon as a child is born.

Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave eases a family’s immediate financial stress. Research has also shown that generous paid parental leave results in more women returning to the same job they left, which pays off for employers, who have invested in those workers. It also means working mothers are able to maintain their ability to provide for their families.

We really are slipping behind international best practice with our paid parental leave provisions. Last year Australia introduced 18 weeks’ paid leave, giving working parents the opportunity to choose between that or opt for a “baby bonus” of $5,000. As our population ages, it is crucial that we are able to attract workers and a skilled labour force. To compete, we need to be able to provide the same, if not better, provisions than are enjoyed elsewhere. We must get over our short-term thinking. If we invest in paid parental leave, we will get good returns. It is good for the economy, it is good for babies, it is good for families, and it is good for our labour market. Tēnā koutou katoa.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora anō tātau katoa tēnei rangi. Ki a mātau o te Pāti Māori he rangi whakaharahara tēnei. E tautoko ake ana i te āhuatanga o te pire ki tōna mutunga mai. He aha tā tātau, tā te pakeke i tēnei ao? E ai ki tā wētahi ko tā te pakeke he tiaki i te tamaiti, i te mokopuna. Nō reira kāre mātau i te whakahē i tērā āhuatanga katoa. Ki a mātau, he taonga te tamaiti, he taonga te mokopuna. Nō reira me aro tonu tātau katoa, ki ngā painga ka puta ki wā tātau tamariki, ahakoa kei hea rātau. Ko te mea nui kia tiakina paitia rātau e ngā whānau. Ana kua puta te kōrero i te pō nei mō te āhuatanga o te putanga o te tangata āta titiro ki ngā tūpāpaku mō tēnei mea mō te whānau me ōna raruraru katoa. Koinei te tikanga o tā mātau aronganui, kia tiaki i wā tātau tamariki.

Me manaaki i te tamaiti, koinei te mea pai o tēnei o ngā pire, hāngai tonu ana ki tēnei pire. Arā, kia whakarahi ake, kia roa ake te āhuatanga o te, me kī te wā whakatā o te mea tiaki i te pēpi mai i te 14 o ngā wiki ki te 26 o ngā wiki. He mea pai tērā. Me whai wāhi anō rā ngā mātua, mēnā i tō rātau ake kotahi, ki ngā kuia, koroua, ki ngā matua kēkē, matua whāea rānei, ngā pakeke, kia taea ai e rātau te whiriwhiri te huarahi e tika ana mō rātau. Kia kore rātau e herea i ngā momo pire. E hia kē nei ngā kōrero kua puta mō te āhuatanga o te nui o te moni. Kua raruraru katoa tēnei pire nā te āhuatanga o te moni. Heoi anō, ko tā mātau titiro kē ki te painga o te tamaiti, o te mokopuna. Kaua ko te moni i tōna kotahi.

Nā, pīrangi ana au ki te whakaara ake i tētahi kōrero, e hāngai tonu ana ki tētahi kupu i Te Reo Māori. Ko te kupu, ko tēnei kupu ko te “whāngai”. He aha te whāngai? Ko te whāngai, he mea tiakina e tētahi o te whakapapa o taua tamaiti. He rerekē ki tērā o te kupu “adoption” e ai ki tā te kupu Pākehā. Ko te whāngai anō te whāngai, ko te adoption anō te adoption. He aha te rerekētanga? Ko te whāngai, he tamaiti ka tiakina e tōna whānau ā-whakapapa. Engari anō te adoption, ka taea e te tamaiti te noho nei, i te taha o tētahi ō waho ake o te whakapapa. Nō reira ko tāku ko te whakaara ake i tēnei take o te whāngai, i te mea ehara tērā āhuatanga i roto i te ture i tēnei wā.

Nā, hei tauira ake. Ō roto i a au, ō roto o te Waiariki, nōnātatanei i tae mai tētahi wahine ki a au. Me kī mō tēnei wā ko tōna ingoa ko Hine. I a ia tētahi pēpi whāngai. I whiwhi a ia i te wā i whānau mai tēnei pēpi. I mua o te wā i whānau mai te pēpi, i tono ia kia whiwhi ai ia i tētahi pūtea hei āwhina i a ia, engari, kāre tērā i whakaaetia. Ka haere ki te tono pīra, arā ki te pīra, engari ko te kupu whakamutunga i hoki mai ki a ia i Te Tari Mahi, e kāo. Kāre i te whakaaetia. Anei tana kōrero i te reo Pākehā: “Whāngai are adoptions in accordance with Māori custom and are not legally recognised until an application for adoption is lodged in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955.” Nō reira i raro i tērā āhuatanga kua raruraru katoa a Hine.

I roto i Te Ao Māori, ko tēnei mea ko te whāngai he mea nui. He mea ō nehe, me kī i tōia mai ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama i tēnei ao hōu. Engari, ka taea i roto i te āhuatanga o tēnei kaupapa o te whāngai, kia tiakina. He aha te tikanga o tēnei kupu o te “whāngai”? E ai ki tā te Pākehā, “to feed and nourish”. Koinei te tikanga o tērā kupu. Arā anō ētahi atu kupu. Ko te āta whai ko te tamaiti whāngai. Engari, ko tā mātau ko te kī atu, ā, he aha te hē o te whakaae, kia pērā rawa te āhuatanga o Te Ao Māori, ki tērā o Te Ao Pākehā. Kia whai tonu tēnei mea o te whāngai, ki tērā o te adoption. Mēnā e taea ana e tētahi tangata te whiwhi pūtea mō te adoption, he aha te rerekētanga o tērā o Te Ao Māori, me kī, o te whāngai? Ko tā mātau ko te kī atu, karekau he paku rerekētanga.

E ōrite ana te tiaki o te tamaiti. Arā anō te oranga o te tamaiti kei mua i te aroaro. Engari, he rerekē te ao me kī, te tirohanga o Te Ao Pākehā me Te Ao Māori. Nō reira kei te whakaara ake tēnei kaupapa ki a koe otirā ki a tātau kia whai wāhi tēnei kupu ko te “whāngai” ki roto i tēnei pire. Kei te tautoko ake i te pire, tēnā koutou kia ora tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings once again, everyone, today. This is an important day to the Māori Party. We endorse this bill until its completion. What is our role—the role of parents in this world? According to some, it is up to parents to care for children or grandchildren. Therefore we do not reject that stance, at all. In our view, children and grandchildren are treasures. So we all need to focus on the benefits that emerge for our children, no matter where they are. The main thing is that families take good care of them. There was a comment made this evening about the coroner’s report pertaining to a family’s plight. This is our focus: on caring for our children.

We must look after children. That is the positive focus of this bill, which will extend paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks. That is a good thing. Solo parents, couples, grandparents, aunties, and uncles should be able to make their own choice about the best avenue for them so they are not bound by various laws. There has been a lot said about the costs of the parental leave price tag, which hinders this bill. However, our focus is on the welfare of the child.

I want to raise an issue that relates to a Māori term. That is the issue of whāngai. What is a whāngai? A whāngai is a child who is cared for by one of their kin members. It is quite different from adoption. What is the difference? Whāngai are cared for by their kin, but adoption allows children to live with someone who is not related by blood. Therefore I wish to raise the issue of whāngai because it is not recognised by law at this time.

Allow me to provide an example. Recently a woman came to me in my electorate of Waiariki. We will call this woman Hine. Hine had a whāngai baby, which she has had since its birth. Before the baby was born she applied for paid parental leave and the application was denied. She then appealed and received a response from the Department of Labour that denied her appeal. It stated this in English: “Whāngai are adoptions in accordance with Māori custom and are not legally recognised until an application for adoption is lodged in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955.” Hine was in a lot of trouble under that situation.

Within Māori society whāngai is a very important concept. It is an ancient practice that has been brought into the modern world. However, with this bill that concept can be protected. The term “whāngai” literally means “to feed and nourish”. What is wrong with bringing the Māori practice of whāngai in line with the Pākehā practice of adoption? If one can receive financial assistance for adoption, what is the difference from the Māori practice of whāngai? We say there is no difference at all.

The welfare of the child must be paramount. But there are differences between the Māori and Pākehā worlds. And so I raise this issue with you and I urge all of us to allow the term “whāngai” to be included in this bill. I endorse the bill. Thank you.]

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, but for reasons that are somewhat different from those that have been expressed to this point in the House. I want to pick up on a couple of things that have been said—firstly, on whāngai. Having come from a family who have benefited from whāngai, through my mother and my nanny, I absolutely believe that this is part of a conversation that needs to take place. I believe that by bringing this bill to the House, Ms Moroney may actually have accidentally provided a platform for that conversation to take place. That would be one of the reasons why New Zealand First believes that this bill needs to go to the select committee. The country needs to have a conversation. We need to talk about what is not in the current bill and how we can improve it, and however this bill comes out the other side of this select committee process, that is exactly what the select committee process is for.

We also, with all due respect to the National-led Government, do not happen to believe your numbers. We would like to see them. We had to base this on the numbers we have been given to date, such as our class size numbers, and we cannot get any numbers around our bonus scheme. So we would like to go through the select committee process so that New Zealand First can actually get some hard data from the officials here about how much this may or may not cost the country.

Maggie Barry: Ask the reference library.

TRACEY MARTIN: Nobody in this House disagrees—not the National Party, not Maggie Barry, not Labour, not anybody else—that mothers and fathers are important to children. None of us disagree on that. This is not a conversation about whether that is important or not, but this is a conversation that needs to take place, and that is why we believe that the bill should go to the select committee, and we will continue to support it to that stage.

I do want to say one thing, though, to Ms Upston—

Louise Upston: Mrs. I’m Mrs.

TRACEY MARTIN: Mrs. I beg your pardon. Thank you. It always needs to be clarified. I want to say that I was a proud, non-paid, and technically unemployed mother for 15 years. I am proud to have been that, just as much as you are proud to be a working mother. There should be no conversation between the two of us about which one of those is a better thing, because there is no better thing; they are both worthy. Part of the conversation that needs to take place is about—and I believe that it was Ms Goodhew who said it—value in the workplace. I would like to see some of the extended conversation take place at the select committee about value in the home.

This is about priorities. This is not about other countries—what other countries do, how many weeks they do it in, and how often they do it—this is about New Zealand and the things we prioritise and the things we value. We all say that we value children. We all say—and we all believe it—that we value those early years in that relationship with their parents. All that New Zealand First is suggesting to the Government is that it was arrogant, it was paternalistic, and it was dictatorial to come out before a conversation took place, where the public of New Zealand could participate, and say that it would veto this bill. We suggest that you change your mind. We suggest that if Ms Goodhew is right and the New Zealand public identifies the fiscal conditions that we are in, then they will come, they will present to us, and they will say: “Yes, it’s important, but we think it can wait.” If Ms Goodhew believes that of the New Zealand public, give them a chance to make that statement.

New Zealand First supports this bill to select committee, and we will continue to do so.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. We are absolutely in agreement with many of the things that have been said in this House tonight about new parents. This is a Government that is extremely supportive of new parents, and I honestly believe that the intent of paid parental leave—that it makes life easier for working mothers to take a longer leave period from their job, which is good for both the parents and the baby—is an excellent thing. In fact, there is considerable research to say that it is greatly beneficial to most families. We are completely in favour of that and entirely supportive of new parents.

Let us have a look at the facts, because the misguided and misinformed moronics in other parts of the Chamber have not been paying attention to the facts. This Government has put its money where its mouth is when it comes to looking after children and families. We spent $157 million providing the current 14 weeks of paid parental leave. That is just in the last financial year. We have increased the maximum paid parental leave payment by $67 a week since we took office. On 1 July of this year, just over 3 weeks ago, we also increased the amount of money that is available—the maximum parental leave payment available for eligible employees and for the self-employed as well. These are big gains. Look at the figures: $458 has now gone up to $475 a week. The minimum parental leave payment for the self-employed has also increased. These are excellent measures.

Let us take a look at some of the moronic things that have been mooted in this bill: to extend paid parental leave from the current entitlement of 14 weeks to 26 weeks. But wait! There is more—there is more. Sue Moroney has actually admitted again that she wants to extend it up to 52 weeks. What does that mean? Let us just dust down the Labour abacus. Labour members do not have much call to add things up, because their maths is always wrong. They are always just thinking “Oh well, if we get it wrong we’ll just borrow a bit more.” Let us have a look at it, using their own costings for the policy. It will cost about $450 million over the first 4 years. We do not have that money. We just do not have it. The leader says that that is thrifty. That is their idea of thrifty? I do not think so. This is not a group of people who are going to be in Government any time soon, because the New Zealand public are not silly. Under Labour’s plan they would phase in this money.

Let us take a look around the world, shall we? Let us have a look at what other countries have done and what it has cost them. France pays 16 weeks of paid parental leave. It has just announced what? Spending cuts of €65 billion to eliminate its deficit. This is just what other countries pay when they have to borrow to give parental leave. Spain has 16 weeks’ parental leave, and a debt of what? Of €820 billion. Its unemployment rate is 24 percent. This is the kind of future that Labour has got planned for our children and our families. This is Labour’s wisdom. Let us have a look at the infamous Greece: 17 weeks of paid parental leave. What does it cost it? A bankrupt economy that has just had €240 billion of bailout money from other countries. It is borrowing for unaffordable policies and it is not sustainable.

Ireland has 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It is cutting €6 billion from its spending. It has cut public servants’ pay—Labour would love that, would they not? They would use their union block vote pretty swiftly there. And it pays about 5 percent—it has put up VAT to 23 percent. The most generous of them all, the gold standard, is the United Kingdom, with 39 weeks of paid parental leave. Remember, this is not even close to the 52 weeks that those people actually want to bring in. They want to bring it in by stealth. It is unaffordable. The deficit in the UK is so high that the Government has just announced the largest spending cuts since World War II. Well, thank you Labour and the Greens for supporting these ridiculous policies. We are doing the right thing. As happens so often, Labour is out of step with the times. It is cocooned. It is unaware of cataclysmic upheavals and seismic activities.

I believe that there is a very good debate to be had on the merits of extending paid parental leave. I believe that we can do that once the books are back in surplus so we will not be joining the international examples who have borrowed to fund the extensions. This is an ill-advised bill for these times that is poorly executed and put through, and I am very, very glad indeed for the children of New Zealand that we are not supporting this rubbish.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill, this very important bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I congratulate my colleague Sue Moroney, who I know has worked really hard on this bill. She is supported not only by the majority in this House but also by child advocacy groups, community organisations, business, unions, and working families up and down New Zealand. In fact, this bill is supported by everyone except National and ACT. But they have never supported paid parental leave. Maggie Barry perhaps needs to go and study her own party’s history. At every opportunity it has voted against paid parental leave, and you do not have to go back very far in the Hansard to find out what the National Party members were saying about it, including the current Minister of Women’s Affairs, who made a disgraceful speech—a disgraceful speech. She actually said in the debate in 2006 around extending paid parental leave to the self-employed that it was like a benefit, that women would be better off with a tax cut, and that it was just extending welfare all the time. I mean, it was disgraceful stuff that we have heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs.

Then we have heard the National Party blaming women and children for the global financial crisis. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? I have heard everything now. The truth is that this Government would far rather waste money on tax handouts to people who do not really need them than invest in future generations by ensuring that they have the best start in life.

This bill will ease pressure on working parents, and, boy, do they need it at the moment. It will align us with entitlements in the OECD and help prioritise the early years of our precious children’s development. Extending paid parental leave will improve the health of mothers and children. It will help working mothers breastfeed until their baby is 6 months of age, which is the World Health Organization’s recommendation. It also helps prevent premature return to the workforce on the basis of financial stress. It enables women to stay connected to the workforce but have a reasonable amount of time off with their newborn babies.

Paid parental leave is an issue about families and children, but it is also a work rights issue. The need for paid parental leave has sharpened over the last 20 years as more women have entered the workforce, and here I want to acknowledge all the women and men throughout New Zealand who campaigned for at least 20 years for paid parental leave. And the campaign goes on. Paid parental leave gives a worker the right to take time out to recover from birth, to establish breastfeeding, and to bond with their baby. We do that by paying an entitlement that minimises the economic impact that forces parents to return to work before the time is right.

We now know from a number of evaluations that our current 14 weeks’ paid parental leave is too short. Parents are returning to work early because of economic pressures, and the negative impact of that cannot be exaggerated. There are strong and proven and employment reasons for having longer paid parental leave. The goal of paid parental leave is to support both the maternal health of the mother and the baby, but the current length of paid parental leave in New Zealand does not do it adequately.

People tonight have said that most other OECD countries offer longer periods of paid parental leave than New Zealand, and many provide leave at a higher proportion, including Australia, which has now moved to 18 weeks and it is paid at a higher rate than New Zealand’s. But unfortunately since National became the Government in 2008, it has done the bare minimum on paid parental leave. The amount has increased because it had to under the Act. It is an automatic increase. You are talking about $20 a week over some period of time. It is provided for cost of living increases only, as it had to under the Act.

After being a world leader when paid parental leave was introduced in 2002 and extended in 2005, New Zealand is now lagging behind, and we know that New Zealand was criticised internationally just last week at the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women because of our record not only on progress for women but also on paid parental leave.

All Governments have to make choices about priorities every day they are in office. We say this Government is making the wrong choices and priorities. It is wasting money on foolish ventures, on consultants, and on a crazy asset sale scheme. Well, Labour’s difference is that we choose families and children. I support this bill.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill tonight. Everybody in this House will agree that spending time with your family is important. I am a mother of three—a working mother—and every single moment I spend with my—

Dr Rajen Prasad: All mothers are working mothers.

KATRINA SHANKS: Sorry, what was that—every mother is a working mother? They absolutely are. But I absolutely believe that every moment that we spend with our children is valuable, especially when you cannot always be in the home with them. We are lucky we live in a country that puts a value on children and supports their parents. I believe that families are the cornerstone of our society, and we need to strengthen them as much as we possibly can.

But this bill, this Labour bill, puts a cost on the taxpayer of $150 million a year, and with Labour’s own costings, that is $0.5 billion of taxpayers’ money over the next 4 years. Where is this money going to come from? Well, I can tell you exactly where it is going to come from. It is going to come from overseas lenders. We are going to have to go into the international market place, borrow money, and pay back interest, and this is money we cannot afford to borrow. The Labour Party wants to drive New Zealand further into debt. It wants the country to borrow more, it wants the country to spend more, and it is doing it thinking it is just going to be OK. Well, actually we cannot. Having the State running up debt does not help families. Borrowing more does not help families. What helps families is smart policies and sound economic leadership, and this is what this Government is delivering for the people of New Zealand and New Zealand families. We need to get back into surpluses. We need to get back into the black, and we are going to pay for the policies the right way, with money in the bank.

Under this Government, we are going to spend the taxpayers’ money wisely and support families with holistic family policy approaches. So what are we doing for family policy, you might ask—not that those members are asking—but what would you do for family policy? This is what we are doing. We have got free doctor visits for most under-6-year-olds. We have got higher Working for Families payments. We are spending—listen to this, Sue Moroney—34 percent more on early childhood education than was ever spent under the Labour Government. We are fully funding PlunketLine 24/7, which that Labour Government cut. We are boosting maternity services by $50 million for new parents and vulnerable parents, so they can go and get more access to the services that they need to support their families. We have got the lowest inflation rate since 1999, and how does that help families, Labour would ask. Well, it is pretty obvious. Lowering the cost of living for New Zealand families is absolutely fundamental for them to survive in these tough times.

So what are we going to do in the future, you might ask, for families, instead of this $150 million one-off policy? Well, what we are going to do is target 98 percent of our under-fives to attend early childhood education over the next 5 years. What a fantastic start for our families. We are going to improve maternity services to get the access better for those families. What a great start for our families. And by 2017 we are going to increase infant immunisations to 95 percent for 8-month-olds. What a great initiative for families. There is a right time and a wrong time to implement policy, and this is not the right time to extend parental leave.

I just want to raise one issue about parental leave that has not been talked about in this debate, and that is about the signals and the trends that we are hearing about coming from the sector—from midwives and health professionals in the sector—about what is happening. The trend we are hearing about is that parents now believe—we are seeing a trend—that they are taking only those 14 weeks that the Government is paying for. Previously, families used to save. They used to plan to take the leave that they would like to take with their families. So when we have policies like this we have to be very careful to ensure that we do not send the message that parental leave is for only those 14 weeks; it is absolutely not. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the bell before, during my maiden speech in Parliament I said that I wanted to improve work-life balance for New Zealand families. This bill, the Parental Leave and Employment (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, will do that. It will do it in a way that helps New Zealand children get the best start possible, it will do it in a way that supports working families at that critically important time in their lives, and it will do it in a way that truly does value parenting. I want to thank those parties that have expressed their support for this bill in the House tonight. I think there has been some very rational and well-researched debate coming through from the parties supporting the bill. I was, though, alarmed and, I will say, actually surprised at the sheer venom coming from the benches opposite, as this side of the House strives to do something positive to support working families.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: To get us more in debt—more debt.

SUE MORONEY: The sheer anger—led by Dr Nick Smith, I would have to say, but challenged very, very quickly by Maggie Barry—coming from that side of the House was something I was not quite prepared for. I have got to say that to me it demonstrated an anger and a resentment towards working families that I thought was quite ugly. I thought it was quite ugly, because that Government was on the wrong side when it came to the class sizes issue. It did not understand families’ needs then and it does not understand families’ needs now with paid parental leave. There is a bit of a theme coming through.

But look, I think there was actually a lawyer in Kaitāia who said it best. A Kaitāia lawyer by the name of Bryce Quarrie was quoted in his local newspaper, saying he was not entirely surprised by finance Minister Bill English’s threat to use his power of veto over this bill. He said: “When you’re a farmer in Dipton, you probably think women should be at home making tomato sandwiches for the shearing gang, anyway.”, and I think he has hit the nail on the head, because as much as those members might try to say that they support paid parental leave, the truth is and the fact is that the National Party has always voted against paid parental leave, even when Labour, when in Government, was running such strong surpluses. When we were in Government the National Party voted against it on every single occasion. This is not to do with affordability; this is to do with ideology. It is to do with the tomato sandwiches and the shearing gang, and that is where the National Party still sits on this issue. Yet it says that it wants to provide—in fact, it promised the voters at the last election—a brighter future. Well, I put that party on notice. Selling our State assets is not a brighter future. Increasing class sizes is not a brighter future. Investing in children in those early years by extending paid parental leave to 6 months is a brighter future. That is what New Zealanders are going to start to see through very, very soon. In fact, I think they have starting seeing through it already.

I think on the odd occasion the National Party did let its mask slip. Maggie Barry called this ridiculous policy, at the same time as I am sure her speaking notes, her research unit notes, were telling her “Please don’t say you don’t like paid parental leave. Just pretend you do, and say it is all about the cost.” We have already exploded that myth, because, as I said at the very outset, that Government spends money on people earning over $150,000—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You still haven’t told us how you’re paying for it. Where’s the money coming from?

SUE MORONEY: I am telling you now, Mr Smith. I am telling you exactly how. The tax cuts for those people earning over $150,000 that they did not need is money that should be spent on supporting working families. That is exactly the money. Mr Smith has challenged me to say where the money would come from, and I have said where the money would come from. But here is an even better idea. The paid parental leave allowance is $475 gross a week. We pay in childcare subsidies up to $588 a week for those same babies to be looked after by strangers. I say let us put that money into having their parents being able to choose to stay at home with them, and let them have a choice.

This debate is about families, and I want to take the opportunity now to thank my family for being here. Three generations of my family are here today to support me on this bill. My parents, Mary and Daddy Moroney, are here, who brought me up and, I think, did a pretty damn good job. Thank you very much for being here. I have my husband, Shane, who has come to support me for the first reading of this bill, and I guess who you might call the people who gave me the personal initiative for this bill: my sons, our boys, Quinn and Logan. It is great to have you here. You are all my pride and joy, and that is what it is all about. It is about a mother’s love for her children. I recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Lobbying Disclosure Bill

First Reading

HOLLY WALKER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I move, That the Lobbying Disclosure Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to introduce the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, which is my first member’s bill in this House. I want to begin by acknowledging Sue Kedgley, who originally conceived of and drafted this bill during the 49th Parliament. It is an honour and a privilege to carry on Sue’s important work for more open and transparent government and honest politics, and to have the opportunity to guide her bill through Parliament’s processes.

Sue launched this bill out of a concern about the growing influence of lobbying in New Zealand. After 12 years in Parliament, she thought lobbying was becoming increasingly entrenched in our political system, and she was concerned that it was unregulated and often happening behind closed doors, outside the public sphere. This bill was drawn from the ballot at a time when there are increased calls for lobbying transparency in other jurisdictions as well as New Zealand. In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Government has also undertaken to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists following a number of high-profile scandals involving lobbying. Although we are fortunate that New Zealand has not been caught up in lobbying scandals like those we have seen in other jurisdictions, the reality remains that some people have a better chance of being heard than others. Most of the time we do not know who these people are, including, until very recently, the small group that has access passes to Parliament.

This bill is an opportunity to create best practice in New Zealand before we find ourselves in a situation like that of the United Kingdom. A lobbying disclosure regime is an important step towards more open government and is consistent with recent moves towards greater transparency and independence for MPs’ salaries and expenses in New Zealand and in other Westminster jurisdictions. This bill aims to bring a measure of transparency and public disclosure to lobbying activity in New Zealand. It also aims to enhance trust in the integrity of Parliament and in political decision-making. It is closely modelled on the successful Canadian public disclosure regime and was developed following an OECD report recommending that member countries take action to establish lobbying disclosure regimes in their respective jurisdictions.

The bill seeks to do two things. First, it establishes a Register of Lobbyists. Anyone who is paid to undertake lobbying activity must register and file quarterly returns with the Auditor-General. Second, it empowers the Auditor-General to develop a code of ethics for lobbyists in consultation with key stakeholders and the public. Once finalised, anyone registered as a lobbyist would be required to comply with the code of ethics.

There are some key principles that have guided my work on this bill to date and I would like to set these out for members now, to help shape our debate in the House tonight. It is my intention that these principles should be included in the purpose statement in the final version of the bill if it progresses through further stages in the House. First, lobbying is a legitimate activity. In seeking to introduce a disclosure regime and a code of ethics, it is not my intention to designate lobbying as illegitimate or to prevent it from happening. It may come as a surprise to some members to hear that politicians are not experts on everything. In some cases, we are not experts on anything. It is an important part of our job to hear from those with knowledge on an issue, to help inform our decision making. Lobbying can help with this. Although this bill would require certain communications to be registered and declared, it does not suppose that these communications should not be taking place.

Second, an open and accessible Government and Parliament is vital. A wonderful thing about New Zealand is how approachable and accessible our politicians are. In no way do we want this bill to be seen as an attempt to restrict access to MPs or to have a chilling effect on interactions between the public and their representatives. We want it to be easy for people to actively engage as citizens in our democracy. However, as part of this open and accessible system, we need to be transparent about who has that access. The public has a right to know who is lobbying MPs on which issues. Lobbying transparency will help to level the playing field in terms of influence on decision making.

Since the bill was pulled from the ballot, I have sought to engage with anyone and everyone with an interest in the bill or who might be affected by a lobbying disclosure regime. I have met with corporate lobbyists, in-house lobbyists from businesses and non-government organisations, and representatives from unions, charities, and other political parties, all in an effort to learn more about how a disclosure regime and a code of ethics would fit within their activities and to understand the impacts it would have on their work. I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to meet with me and share their thoughts on the bill. It has been an enjoyable and at times eye-opening process.

Through this consultation process, it has become clear that certain areas of the bill as currently drafted may require amendment. Although it is vital that a lobbying disclosure regime upholds the principles of openness and transparency, it also needs to be practical and workable. I freely acknowledge that there is a tension there and it is one that I am confident we can work through in the select committee.

In the spirit of openness and transparency, but without wanting to prejudice any of the conversations that we will have in the committee, I would like to flag to the House some of those areas that I believe may require further exploration. One area is the definition, both of lobbying activity and who would be captured as a lobbyist. The bill currently defines lobbying as communication in an attempt to influence public decision-making in relation to legislation, regulation, Government policy, or the awarding of grants, funding, contributions, or contracts by or on behalf of Government. It also includes the act of arranging a meeting between a public office holder and any other person. A lobbyist would be anyone who for payment undertakes this sort of communication with a public office holder, namely MPs, Ministers, and anyone employed in their offices.

Both of these definitions are deliberately wide, because as soon as restrictions are introduced, we risk not capturing the activity that should be captured and open up avenues for getting around the disclosure regime. However, these wide definitions may have some unintended consequences. An example was flagged in the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on this bill, which highlighted that the bill as currently drafted may capture individuals who communicate with their electorate MP on behalf of a small business, regarding Government policy. The intent of this bill is not to prevent constituents from contacting their MPs or to prevent MPs from conducting their normal duties. It may be necessary to amend the definitions in the bill to make sure that this intent is clear.

Another area that I believe warrants further exploration is the possibility of moving the onus of registering and filing returns from the individual lobbyist to the organisation that they represent. This change would help to clarify who is undertaking lobbying activity and would therefore need to register, as well as reducing the administrative burden, particularly for smaller organisations. Questions have also been raised with me about the range of activity that might fall within the definition of lobbying communication and how much of that activity would need to be disclosed.

I am hopeful that some of the grey areas about what to declare and when will be dealt with through the development of a code of ethics, as well as in the broader role of the Auditor-General or another agency that might pick up the role and functions suggested for the Auditor-General. In Canada the Commissioner of Lobbying has a strong educational role in order to foster awareness of the requirements of the Act and is able to take a discretionary approach towards issues of compliance. I would like to see the same thing happen here.

There are some aspects of the bill that I believe must remain intact and are central to the purpose of the bill. It is important that the bill continues to apply across the board to all types of individuals or organisations that undertake paid lobbying activity. This means that as well as capturing consultant lobbyists, it must also apply to so-called in-house lobbyists representing businesses, and organisations including not-for-profits. True transparency means we need to be able to see the range of organisations that have been communicating with MPs and Ministers in an attempt to influence public policy. Anything less would not give a clear picture of influence. However, I am aware from the useful conversations I have had with various organisations and peak bodies that there are particular concerns for smaller not-for-profit organisations about how the provisions of this bill might apply to them. I am confident that these can also be addressed by the select committee, and I reiterate in the House tonight my willingness to engage with an open mind on these issues.

I am grateful for the indications of support I have had from other parties to allow this bill to be referred to the Government Administration Committee for further consideration. I look forward to engaging in the deliberations of that committee and exploring some of the potential amendments I have flagged in my speech tonight, as well as hearing from affected parties and members of the public about potential further improvements to the bill. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of continuing the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, put forward by Holly Walker, to the select committee stage for further discussion, and I congratulate Holly on having a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. I was most interested to hear that the genesis of the bill was from Sue Kedgley, with whom I worked quite closely on a previous select committee. I am surprised, to be honest, that she is not here, but no doubt she will be in touch.

This is a bill drafted with good intentions, one could say, and noble intent—the intent to promote the ideals of open government, which I am sure everybody in this Chamber would agree with. The Government is supporting this bill to select committee, because we see and value the need for a debate on access to, and influence of third parties on, MPs and staff. Just as the previous speaker, Holly Walker, was perhaps a little harsh towards Simon O’Connor when he introduced his bill, I am sure she will not mind if we level a little bit of gentle criticism on this one. Indeed, she has given notice of the fact that even in her own opinion this bill probably does require a little bit of work, which is why we would like it to come to the Government Administration Committee.

Transparency around the activities of those lobbying MPs and their staff is an important element of open government, and one that this bill aims to strengthen. From that point of view, it is a commendable bill, as many bills that are discussed and debated in this House are—commendable but, I would suggest, flawed in several ways. Some of the flaws within this bill are really quite deep. I believe that it can be helped through the select committee examination and the full submission process. I have great faith in the ability of the Government Administration Committee, which I am proud to be the deputy chair of. We work very productively, we are blessed with people with a lot of experience, and we will work towards the intent of this bill while ensuring that it does not—and this is the kicker—curtail the fundamental rights of constituents, and indeed of MPs, in the process.

Let us not forget that lobbying members of Parliament is a fundamental democratic right that goes to the very heart of a democracy—a right that in its current form this bill could be seen to detract from. It is the right of freedom of expression. I believe that it was Keith Locke who once said: “All should be given the right—

Andrew Little: We know how highly regarded he is by the National Party!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —to express a view no matter how disconcerting it should be”—Andrew, you should listen to this—“on even the most difficult or abhorrent of issues … Implicit in free speech is the idea that the community benefits from untrammelled exchange of views and that every participant might have something to add to our enlightenment.” That was Keith Locke.

Likewise, article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information …”.

Both these statements make a vital and not always comfortable point: freedom for all to hold and express opinions and to speak truth to power is essential to all societies. We members of Parliament can take for granted our ability to say our piece, and it is a wonderful thing to be able to do that. We ourselves can come to stand in this Chamber not just for ourselves but also for those whom we are elected to represent and for those who approach us to represent them. We must not dismiss or cast out the views of constituents due to their profession or whether they are paid to be there. We must promote engagement with MPs, giving them their fair hearing and allowing all constituents to speak their mind, just as we are free to do. Likewise, we must not compromise an MP’s ability to engage in discussion with members of the public, be they doctors, be they unionists, be they members of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or Greenpeace, or republicans. The Labour Party, may I suggest, would not be where it is today without the lobbying and access to the parliamentary precinct of the union movement.

Darien Fenton: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No, it would not. It would not. How too would the Green Party itself respond to greater restrictions on its own lobby groups? Would it be exempt under this bill?

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Probably.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: “Probably.”, says the Attorney-General. Indeed, if so, is this the intention of the bill, after all? Is there a conspiracy coming from the party that sees conspiracies in so many other things? Is there a conspiracy in this bill as a self-serving partisan attack that makes exceptions for some lobbyists but not for others? The author of the bill is shaking her head, and I am immediately consoled. But I think, Miss Holly Walker, it might require a little bit more convincing than just an innocent shake of the head.

Much of this scope for conspiracy and underhanded partisan trickery is due to the untidiness of the bill as it exists currently. Charles Chauvel noted in his Supplementary Order Paper on this bill: “the Attorney-General’s report, issued under section 9 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, points out [that] the Bill is too broadly cast.” Likewise, the definition of “lobbying activity” given is broad and unwieldy, and in much need of greater clarification and honing and polishing by a select committee and the people on it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I agree.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Mr Mallard is agreeing with the Attorney-General. This bill also seeks to legislate against lobbying activity only when it is conducted for payment. I will just say that bit again; you may not have quite caught it. I will try it again. This bill also seeks to legislate against lobbying activity only when it is conducted for payment. Where does payment begin and end? Furthermore, where does this leave non-salaried lobbying for economic gain? This lack of definition of “payment” and “economic gain” creates confusion, and leaves the door open for widescale circumvention of the system that this bill has been designed to create.

New Zealand as a nation has always prided itself on both its transparency and its freedom of speech, but if this bill rests solely on these aspects, then, far from being transparent, it is as murky as old dishwater. Indeed, rather than focusing on the exchanging of ideas and MPs learning through giving everyone a fair shake, the bill could proffer a very Hollywood style of an “us versus them” mind-set, which has no place in contemporary democratic politics.

The largest misrepresentation the Greens appear to have gleaned from fiction when creating the bill appears to be the influence that lobbyists have over politicians. It may surprise them to know that New Zealand is first in the world out of 192 countries as the least corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International. Holly is nodding; she knows that—

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

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I am glad to see Ms Holly Walker is nodding in agreement. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Although we always strive to better ourselves when it comes to transparency, this bill has a long way to go before it achieves that.

Let me conclude by stating a hope that every bill passed into law by this House must have not just a noble intent but a positive effect on the lives of those governed by it. Without this, even the best intentions are in need of redemption. Thank you.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): The Labour Party is going to be supporting the Lobbying Disclosure Bill at its first reading, but we do have quite a few reservations about the effect the bill would have if passed into law in its current form. If it were to come back from the select committee in its present form, I think it is unlikely that we would support it beyond that stage.

I want to talk about the underlying values that should drive this, which is about increased transparency around professional lobbyists and those who are, basically, seeking influence for money. I think that we definitely want to see greater transparency around that, and I think that is something that is universally supported.

I do want to talk, however, about some of the practical realities of being a constituency member of Parliament and what this bill might actually mean for constituency members of Parliament. I want to start with the plumbers, because I have a group of plumbers in my electorate who are very passionate about the regulatory environment for plumbers at the moment. They have had quite a few issues, under both Labour and National Governments, that they are very vocal about. They have come to me as their local member of Parliament to express their dissatisfaction. Technically, because they are paid—they are coming to me in their paid capacity—they are covered as lobbyists under this piece of legislation. Church ministers will come to speak to me in their capacity as a minister of the church to talk about issues that are impacting on citizens in my electorate, and that is something that I want to actively encourage. I want to make sure that people in my electorate know that my door is open, and that they can come and talk to me about any number of issues.

One of the things many constituency members of Parliament do is we effectively act as troubleshooters for people, sometimes in relation to paid employment issues. Under the current wording of this bill, some of those would be required to be disclosed if this bill is implemented in its present form. I think that far from improving our democratic system and improving transparency around it, it would actually act as a deterrent for people to speak to their members of Parliament about very legitimate things. There are some people who come to speak to a member of Parliament who would not do so if it was going to automatically become public that they did. I actually think that that would hinder the democratic process and, in fact, be very, very damaging.

I accept that the Green Party probably does not have the active constituency offices that the Labour members of Parliament and the National members of Parliament do, and I know they choose to spend their parliamentary resources on other things, but the constituency members of Parliament will certainly all agree that, in fact, we deal with quite a number of quite sensitive issues in constituency offices. That is something that I will very, very jealously guard, because I think it would be very detrimental to our democratic system if people felt that they could not come to speak to their members of Parliament without that having to be disclosed.

I have had some round table - like discussions in my office around a whole variety of issues that have involved—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not Business Roundtable.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —not Business Roundtable; we have had round-table discussions—getting a whole lot of people who are involved in an issue in the office to actually sort out problems. Some of them are paid to be there because, you know, they may be connected to the case in some way. They may a lawyer involved in it somehow, it may be a business that is involved in it somehow, and they are not there to lobby. They are there because we are trying to solve a problem that may involve a family issue, for example. Those are the sorts of things that are quite sensitive, and I think those people need to be able to know that their member of Parliament can help them with those issues without it having to be disclosed to the general public. So I am concerned that one of the effects of this bill is that it would require that and, therefore, it would act as a detriment to that happening.

As I said, the intention of the bill overall is a good one. It is about getting greater transparency around the work of professional lobbyists, and certainly that is something that I fully support. I think there are other things that are not covered by this bill that we need to look at around the way the Parliament operates and that environment as well. I would also point out, however, that we have a very open system at the moment, and we do have some systems in place—for example, the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament—that help to safeguard our democratic process from those who are effectively trying to buy influence. So our system is good. The intention of the bill is good, but some of the practical impacts of it are not good. We are going to be monitoring this very closely.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Lobbying Disclosure Bill. New Zealand is a vibrant democracy. Its citizens have a high level of trust in their Government and believe that we work in a transparent manner and that we are accountable to the people who elected us. If we compare New Zealand with many other countries, I think we are transparent. We remain accountable to the people who elect us to the Parliament. Yet our colleagues in the Green Party believe that there is a need for lobbying disclosure legislation. Green MP Holly Walker, through her member’s bill, would like to see the establishment of a register for lobbyists, which would to be administered by the Auditor-General, and the development of a code of conduct for lobbyists.

I agree with the example Chris Hipkins gave. A lot of people come and lobby us on their various issues.

National supports this bill in its first reading. However, can I just say that the bill actually, in my opinion, is an attempt to reduce freedom of speech. I mean, why else would a bill want to put a control over people who send a simple email to their representatives in Parliament?

To some constituents who may not be fully aware of how Parliament functions, how laws are enacted, or how they can make their voice heard, we as members of Parliament have at times to be their voice at various levels. I do not believe that is an amount of lobbying in any manner. Rather, it is an opportunity for me to be of service to the people of the constituency. It is my opportunity to engage with constituents and show them that I am at their service.

In case we are to call engaging with one constituent lobbying, then can I ask my colleague across the Chamber: how else are individuals and stakeholders of public policy meant to engage with legislators to make their decisions on their policies? By binding lobbyists to law, are we not imposing rules on the right of the lobbyists that they may have just as a normal person? These are the issues that we will look forward to engaging on during the select committee process. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Lobbying Disclosure Bill as presented going to the Government Administration Committee. In December last year Transparency International published a global Corruption Perceptions Index, which placed New Zealand first in the index of the world’s least corrupt nations. That was something for us to be proud of, and something to be valued.

The perception of corruption amongst members of Parliament is very low in New Zealand, despite a recent high-profile case. But that low level can be enhanced further by more openness around lobbying of MPs in this country. Openness and transparency are essential in all areas of Government, save only where genuine issues of public interest require an exception. In the United Kingdom recently, as we all know, the corrupt practices concerning member of Parliament expenses there became an issue that degraded the reputation of the UK Parliament. Transparency is the medicine to avoid all such problems. A perception is something that you cannot shake. Once a Parliament gets a reputation for being anything other than free from corruption, it is very hard to shake that perception. So for those sorts of reasons I think this bill, although it is very much required in this country, is not aimed at correcting a current problem; it is aimed at avoiding such problems happening in the future.

In relation to paid lobbying and activities, it is very necessary. It is appropriate and desirable, and it is harmless and worthwhile. There is nothing inherently wrong, of course, in lobbying. It is a healthy part of our democracy, provided it is done openly and provided it is done ethically, especially where it concerns professional—in other words, paid—lobbyists. Currently it is something of a secret activity, and it should not be. Professional, paid activities require professional standards and openness. The public ought to have the means to know the who, the what, and the how about lobbying in this country, as is the case in Australia, in Canada, and no doubt in other places as well. Therefore, the requirements of the bill for registration of professional lobbyists—those who are paid—returns of lobbying activities, and a code of conduct arrived at through a consultative process and with select committee scrutiny are appropriate, and should be welcomed by lobbyists as well as MPs and the public generally.

The administration of the Act, as it will be, by the Auditor-General in respect of the register, the keeping of returns and making them publicly available, and the development of the code of conduct, of course, are also very appropriate provisions in the bill. There will be a cost, of course, but it would be modest compared with the value of preserving New Zealand’s reputation externally and Parliament’s reputation internally.

Concerning sanctions, the removal or suspension of a lobbyist from the register for a breach of the code or for failing to file returns is a very powerful tool and will be successful. That, of course, is subject to a lobbyist being given the opportunity to present their views in those circumstances. New Zealand First’s only reservation, really, is around the definition of the term “lobbyist”, and I expect that the select committee will pay close attention to that particular issue. That being solved, this is a bill that should proceed.

New Zealand First would like to consider in the future whether this principle should also be applied to local government, because if it is appropriate for central government, then it is, of course, also appropriate for local government. But that is an issue for the future—one, however, that I do think needs to be considered. New Zealand First is satisfied that this bill is well conceived and that it deserves full consideration by the select committee with particular reference, as I have said, to the definition of who a lobbyist is for the purpose of the bill. With that reservation and those comments New Zealand First is very happy indeed to support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I want to acknowledge the member who has introduced this bill, the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, today, Holly Walker, and also her predecessor in crafting the bill, former MP Sue Kedgley, someone whom I got to know quite well in the 49th Parliament on, I think, the Health Committee. She is a very interesting lady and a very friendly person, someone who holds views passionately—and I love passionate people—however wacky those views might be from time to time. One of the things that I think she did believe very fervently was that Government policy should somehow be framed in a hermetically sealed unit with no other outside influence—a values-based approach to policy setting—and it simply is not the case.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did you have the experience of the other Waitakere man in that area?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There is another speech going on here; I am sure it is important to Mr Mallard. As we all know, that is not the case.

Todd McClay: Sue Kedgley also believed in aliens, but then she realised that—

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is right, and aluminium vapour trails, I think, and no end of conspiracy theories. I think one of the things that needs to be understood is that in receiving information, it is got from both sides of an argument, normally. I think the Speaker of the House has aided this debate today by issuing a press release identifying the—wait for it—15 external parties to Parliament that have access cards to the parliamentary precinct. That list contains such luminaries as two former MPs’ spouses and the fellow who does the prayer breakfast every Wednesday morning. One could consider whether or not that person is on a mission and therefore should register as a lobbyist; I think he is paid by the Methodist Church to be here—a very noble intent.

If one looks at the nature of the bill, one might question the breadth, the absolute breadth, of the definition of “a lobbyist” and the definition of “lobbying”. I think the Attorney-General, that fine member, has provided something of a very forthright opinion, which I shall quote from now. He has concluded that “the Bill appears to limit freedom of expression as affirmed by s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act. The limitation cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” I think that is a very profound statement. But the one that resonated with me was in his summary, where he said: “it risks creating a chilling effect for average New Zealanders who may fear criminal sanctions for merely communicating with a Member of Parliament”. Members will remember when we last heard the words “chilling effect”. That was around the Electoral Finance Act. I am fascinated. The criticisms of the potential risks that this bill has—the Green members are sagely looking and saying: “No, no, that won’t happen. That won’t happen.”, but it sure as heck happened to the Electoral Finance Act when it was passed, and that had a chilling effect on democracy. I certainly do not question the noble intent that Holly Walker and Sue Kedgley had in bringing this bill to the House, and I do not believe that it was anything like the sinister intent to stifle freedom of speech in this country that was the basis for bringing the electoral finance legislation before the House, but, nevertheless, it may yet have that effect.

Mr Auchinvole has quoted Keith Locke. I want to quote the other luminary in the Attorney-General’s opinion and that is the first President of the United States, George Washington, when he was talking about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”—like sheep to the slaughter. I think we need to think very carefully about that impact.

Metiria Turei: Ha, ha! A little dramatic there, Michael.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, they laugh. The Green member laughs, but when Todd McClay sought to interject on Holly Walker, what did she say? “Shh!”, and I think that sums it up completely.

I think freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this House is the No. 1 right that every member of Parliament has—freedom from the Crown and freedom from the public. And the independence to be able to listen to, speak about, and share the ideas on a bill, on a policy, or on supply is absolutely fundamental. In considering the bill very carefully, the Government Administration Committee should consider very carefully whether those rights will be eroded if this bill is passed.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): As other members have begun their contributions to the debate, I would like to follow in that tradition by congratulating Holly Walker on the drawing of her bill, the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, for debate in the House.

I will say to her what I said to Sue Kedgley when the bill was originally drawn and before it was transferred into Holly Walker’s name. Members on this side of the House are very supportive of the idea of greater transparency and bringing that greater transparency to the House in the lobbying area, and if that can be done in a workable way, then Labour members will look forward to supporting the legislation further. But what we cannot do, I think, is ignore the very real concerns that have been expressed to us about the practicability of the bill, and that is especially the case with the community and voluntary sector. The number of non-governmental organisations and voluntary organisations that have come to me and other Labour members and expressed real concern about the sort of reporting burden that this legislation would put on them simply cannot be ignored. That is why what I have done is try to crystallise some of the objections that have been expressed to us and that we sympathise with in Supplementary Order Paper 76, which I have tabled at this first reading so that Labour’s objections to the legislation can be clear from the outset and we can, hopefully, get some changes under discussion as early as possible.

The three fundamental changes that the Supplementary Order Paper in my name would effect are as follows. First of all, it would make it very clear that the target of this legislation ought to be lobbying for commercial purposes. In my view and in the view of my colleagues there is simply no public interest, or no similar public interest, in subjecting big tobacco, big alcohol, big pharmaceutical, or big food to the same sorts of light transparency requirements as might apply to a small NGO that is delivering social services or health services, or is representing a particular philosophical, religious, or other belief.

So the first thing that my Supplementary Order Paper would do is it would make it very clear that the focus of transparency, registration, and what have you ought to be on those big commercial interests, because that is the area where under our laws at the moment there is insufficient transparency. NGOs, voluntary organisations, and incorporated societies are accountable to their members. It is very clear through their reporting what they do from day to day. That is not the case even in respect of a corporate, let alone an association of corporates or other commercial interests. And I do agree that there ought to be a focus on those sorts of interests and a better idea amongst the public about how they are seeking to exert—and, indeed, are exerting—influence. So that is the first change that we would want to see.

The second change is one that I think Holly Walker has conceded needs to be made, and that is that it needs to be absolutely clear that communications between members of Parliament and constituents are not caught by this legislation. We all know—because we have all been in this position—that members of the public come to us in confidence to express concerns, to express a desire to see us take up causes on their behalf that they would not want the public to know about, because they are deeply personal to them. It has to be absolutely clear that that communication remains inviolate.

The final amendment that I have foreshadowed is an attempt to make the exemption that currently exists for public servants workable by extending it to all those who work in the wider State services.

I hope we can make something good of this bill. I apprehend from the speeches across the House that it will go to the Government Administration Committee. I hope that the legislation that emerges from the select committee can be workable. And I hope that the Supplementary Order Paper that I have provided helps to point the way to at least some of that workability.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support Holly Walker’s Lobbying Disclosure Bill. We would like to thank all the other parties in Parliament for their support of the bill. The humour we have seen in the debate has been phenomenal tonight. I would like to acknowledge Sue Kedgley, who provided the genesis for this bill. I note that we have already seen some action as a result of this bill coming into the House, which is the disclosure of those 15 lobbyists with the access cards to come into Parliament. I think Holly Walker has outlined the Green Party’s arguments for the bill.

I would like to stress the Green Party view that we see lobbying as a legitimate activity. It is an important part of our democracy, and an important way that we as members of Parliament get our information. In a former life I lobbied on behalf of environmental campaigns. But it is something that can be done wrong. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; it is not a cliché to say it. Other countries are moving in this direction, including the UK and the US. Canada has this disclosure, or is having it. It is something that is only going to be beneficial for our democracy. It is something that the OECD has recommended.

I would like to acknowledge what Holly said in this House, which is that she is going into it with the principles of openness and transparency, but she also wants a bill that is pragmatic and workable. So we urge the public and groups to have their say in the Government Administration Committee, and thank the other parties for their support. Kia ora.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the member Holly Walker’s bill, the Lobbying Disclosure Bill. I think she has worked particularly hard in trying to get a piece of legislation that delivers the intent that is clearly behind it, so I appreciate the time she has taken to discuss it with us. If I am honest, I am not sure whether the drafting has got there yet, but that is the advantage of the bill going to a select committee.

I am a little cautious. I also do not think there is a significant problem in this country with lobbying. I disagree with the New Zealand First member, in that I do not think that a lot of activity does go on behind closed doors. I mean, if you walk around Parliament any day of the week, or to a cafe across the road, you will see MPs with people who could be deemed as lobbyists, and it is all done out in the open. If I have a concern about this bill, it is that it might actually drive activity in a way that is completely different from what we have now. I see that as one of the potential disadvantages.

Defining a lobbyist is also particularly difficult. I agree with the comments Chris Hipkins made as an electorate MP. If someone who comes into my office is the chair of a school board of trustees, a local business owner, a trustee of a local community facility, and a member of, let us say, Federated Farmers, which hat do they have on, and do I have to stop and ask them? Does that then stop the free-flow relationship that we have with that constituent as an electorate MP, being able to learn and engage fully? So I am happy to support this bill in the first reading, but there is still some work that needs to happen.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I too will be supporting this Lobbying Disclosure Bill to the Government Administration Committee. I think we have had an interesting day today with David Clark, Simon O’Connor, and Holly Walker being the members with the photocopied bills that have had luck at the ballot. As a result of that, we have had some interesting debates. I reiterate the points that a number of my colleagues have made, and that is that I will certainly not support this bill later, if it is not clarified, but I think those points have been made pretty clearly. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): In reply, I call the honourable member Holly Walker.

HOLLY WALKER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou anō e te Whare. I would like to thank members from across the House for the support indicated tonight for the Lobbying Disclosure Bill to be referred to the Government Administration Committee for further consideration. I am delighted that we will have the opportunity to progress this bill to the next stage. As I articulated in my first call, the bill aims to bring a measure of transparency to lobbying activity in New Zealand and to enhance trust in the integrity of Parliament in political decision-making. It is consistent with recent moves to increase the transparency and independence of MPs’ salaries and expenses, and with an international trend towards the establishment of lobbying disclosure regimes.

I want to thank those members who chose to engage constructively in the debate tonight, and who heard the principles I outlined in my first speech and took those on board. I want to thank the honourable member Charles Chauvel for his Supplementary Order Paper 76, but let him know that I will not be referring this with the bill to the select committee. As I outlined in my opening speech, I expect the bill to be substantively amended by the select committee. I flagged, in my opening speech, some of the areas that I believe warrant further attention, including the concerns of NGOs and smaller organisations. In that context, I think it is premature to propose specific amendments in the way that the member has done at this early stage. I do not wish to prejudice any of the outcomes of the discussion at the committee, and for that reason I do not consider it would be helpful to refer to the committee this Supplementary Order Paper.

However, I want to reassure the member that I am going into the select committee process with an open mind about how the bill might best take into account the particular concerns of the not-for-profit and NGO sectors. I am aware of these concerns, and I am confident that the select committee can address many of them. I would like to reiterate that my approach to this bill will continue to be guided by the principles that lobbying is a legitimate activity, that an open and accessible Government and Parliament are vital, that the public has a right to know who is lobbying MPs and Ministers, and about what, and that a lobbying disclosure regime must be workable and practical, and that it must be fair and apply across the board.

I want to thank Sue Kedgley, once again, for initiating this bill and for allowing me to pick up the mantle of this important work for greater transparency. I would also like to thank the many individuals and organisations who have met with me to discuss the bill. I invite others with thoughts or opinions to do the same, and to make submissions to the select committee. I thank members for their support of this bill, once again. I acknowledge that the real hard work is about to begin, and I am looking forward to that, and to engaging in discussions at the select committee to secure the best possible legislation for an open, transparent, practical, and fair regime for the public disclosure of lobbying activity in New Zealand. Once again, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green): Since the debate on Holly Walker’s bill, the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, has finished, I seek leave for the House to suspend a few minutes early, so we can resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection? There is.

Bills

Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill

First Reading

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) on behalf of Dr Russel Norman (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens are very proud to be presenting this new bill. It is a bill that is absolutely critical—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry. I need to advise the member that he needs to move that the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

STEFFAN BROWNING: I move—

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has started. He needs to keep going.

STEFFAN BROWNING: I move, That the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I intend it to be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Hon Tau Henare: What does the bill say?

STEFFAN BROWNING: What the bill says is that we need to be excluding foreign ownership from sensitive land. Successive Governments have been allowing, through the Overseas Investment Office, significant parcels of land—and sensitive land at that—to be moving into foreign ownership. It is absolutely imperative that this is changed.

This bill is totally timely. New Zealanders have become very, very concerned about losing control of our economic sovereignty following the attempted sale of the Crafar dairy farms into foreign ownership. This bill gives Parliament an opportunity to address these concerns. According to the figures provided by Terralink, since 2005 the Overseas Investment Office has approved 312,600 hectares for sale into overseas ownership, and 280,000 hectares of this land has been rural land. Labour-led and National-led Governments over the last decade have approved the sale of vast areas of New Zealand into foreign ownership. This bill provides an opportunity to put that to a stop. This bill is an opportunity for National and Labour to change course, and to stem the flow of land into overseas ownership. There are strategic economic interests, and this bill is about protecting strategic economic interests. New Zealand must protect its global advantage by keeping New Zealand land for New Zealand citizens, permanent residents, and companies.

Our land is the source of a very large part of our exports to the world: food, especially, but also forestry. If the land, and hence those profits, fall into foreign ownership, it will mean that New Zealand will no longer benefit from those exports. Food prices have increased dramatically over the last decade, and if green economics is correct, we live in a world of finite resources. The price of food will then continue to rise over the long term, and hence the value of food-producing land will continue to rise. Hence, it is no surprise that many Governments, corporations, and investment funds have been engaged in large-scale land-grabbing. In New Zealand we have seen the Chinese Government - backed corporation Shanghai Pengxin buying up Crafar farms, but it is part of a global trend.

Soaring grain prices in 2007-08 led to countries such as Saudi Arabia and South Korea worrying about their national food security, and buying up overseas land. Then speculators and investors joined in. Oxfam says that more than 2 million square kilometres in the last decade have been grabbed; two-thirds of that in Africa. That is like Spain, France, Britain, Italy, and Germany all put together. That is huge. Governments around the world are buying up land to protect their national interests.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

(continued on Thursday, 26 July 2012)

Bills

Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill

Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill

Third 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 third time. Ki a koutou o Ngāti Rereahu, hoki anō rā ki a Raukawa, Maniapoto, Tūwharetoa, ngā mihi ki a koutou i tēnei Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Ka hoki w’akamuri ngā w’akaaro ki tērā pāpā a Charlie Wehi kua hinga i ngā tau kua hipa. Ko ia te kaikerēme tuata’i mō te poraka nei. I tukunga rātou te w’ānau o ngā kerēme ki a Piripi Crown, i te wā o tōna matenga. Nā reira, e te matua, Charlie, kua ea, kua tutuki te mahi, moe mai rā. Huri noa ki a koutou o Maraeroa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To you of Ngāti Rereahu, and back also to you Raukawa, Maniapoto, and Tūwharetoa, acknowledgments to you in this Māori Language Week. My thoughts go back to that elder, Charlie Wehi, who died some years ago. He was the original claimant for this block. When he died, the family of the claims took them to Piripi Crown. So I say, the work has been completed, it has been done, elder Charlie, you can rest there peacefully. And turning to you all, Maraeroa, salutations, acknowledgments, and congratulations.]

We are honoured to welcome to the House the descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks: Ngāti Rereahu, Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and other iwi and hapū. Today is a significant day, an opportunity to set the record straight, to acknowledge harms incurred, to put words to an all too familiar legacy of loss and dispossession.

This story starts in the midst of the volcanic plateau to the south-east of Te Kūiti. The Maraeroa A and B Blocks are a subdivision of the Taupō-nui-a-Tia West Block, which was part of Te Rohe Pōtae district. Maraeroa is the location of significant wāhi tapu. Within the Maraeroa Block rests the eponymous ancestor Rereahu, protected in the village of Ngā Herenga. The land is also rich in resources, regarded as a kono kai from which a wide range of food could be harvested for all the iwi of the surrounding districts. Into this lush location came the Native Land Court, and therein lies the history of grave injustice and dispossession.

The combined operation of the Native Land Court and Crown purchasing breached the Treaty of Waitangi and was inconsistent with its principles. The Crown failed to ensure the owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks benefited from the sale of native timber on their lands. Survey discrepancies reduced the owners’ ability to even manage their own land. Over successive years the people lost access to their wāhi tapu, ngā wāhi kohinga kai, their cultural resources, and materials for construction, such as raupō for building w’are. In all, their cultural connection to their ancestral lands was undermined, the lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation.

Today we face this history and we start a new chapter. These bills mark the beginning of a new relationship with the descendants of the original owners of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks. A new era began in September 2008. Draft terms of negotiation were signed with Te Maru o Rereahu Trust, and the Crown commenced exploratory work with Ngāti Rereahu interests in the blocks. The parties reached an agreed offer in July 2010, and then initialled a deed of settlement in December of the same year. The Crown signed the deed of settlement with the descendants of the original owners on 12 March 2011 at Pā Harakeke.

As part of the process of healing and resolution, the settlement bill formalises the Crown’s apology, wherein the Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to the descendants of the original owners. There is acknowledgment that the Crown and private parties benefited from the milling of the indigenous forests and that the milling of their forests removed the habitat of indigenous species. We learn in no uncertain terms that failure to protect the collective tribal structures had a prejudicial effect on the owners.

The settlement bill includes the vesting of six sites of cultural and historical significance, $50,000 to purchase land of cultural significance, a high-level partnership agreement with the Department of Conservation over lands within Maraeroa A and B Blocks, an overlay classification over Pureora o Kahu, 12 statutory acknowledgments over culturally significant sites on Crown land, two official geographic name changes, a financial settlement of $1.8 million, the option to purchase part of Pureora North Crown forest licensed land and receive the associated accumulated rentals from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, and the right of first refusal over certain Crown properties.

It is always impossible in describing such measures to really understand the impact of these initiatives in helping to shape out a new story for the descendants who will inherit this legislation. The two bills together, the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill, provide a road map for future prosperity and well-being of their people. It has been a long and complex journey since 1884, when the Crown monopoly over purchasing altered the course of history by the sweep of a pen. I want to mihi to the trustees of Te Maru o Rereahu Trust, who gave their time, energy, and determination negotiating this settlement on behalf of all the descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks. It is especially important to acknowledge Piripi Crown, Brian Stanley, and Glen Katu for their skilful leadership in guiding the negotiations.

The legislation has been shepherded through the process due to the efforts of a highly diligent and enthusiastic Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, a constructive chair, an efficient Māori Affairs Committee, and the united commitment of this House to move these bills through in an expeditious way.

Finally, I want to refer to the words of Nōpera Panakāreao, who at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 said: “The shadow of the land goes to Queen Victoria, but the substance remains to us.” Less than a year later he was to say: “The substance of the land goes to the Europeans, and the shadow only will be our portion.” Today we hope that the cycle comes full circle and the substance returns to its rightful owners. I commend these bills to the House.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tino mihi atu ki a koe mō tō kōrero i roto i te Whare nei i roto i tō tātou Reo i te mea, ko tēnei anō Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, e mihi kau ana ki a koe. I a koutou, e tautokotia atu te tīmata o te whakaotinga nei ā tō tātou tuahine a Tariana mō koutou e pā kaha atu i konei, Piripi me Glen koutou katoa, tēnā koutou. E mōhio atu tātou e roaroa hoki atu te tae i te wā nei; e mōhio atu koutou ki ngā taumaha, ngā piki, ngā heke ēngari, e kaha atu koutou hei taetae atu i te rangi nei. He tino rangi nei mō koutou, ōrite atu koutou ki tō nōhanga, he rōroa atu mai i te wā o te Whare Mīere nei ēngari, e mihi kau ana, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou mō tō kaha, mō tō manaaki i a rātou ngā uri i tīmata atu i te āhua o te whenua nei, a Tūwharetoa, a Maniapoto, a koutou o Rereahu, me rātou o Raukawa, e mihi kau ana ki a rātou katoa ngā rangatira o tērā wā, me koutou katoa o tēnei wā. Tēnā koutou mō tō kaha rawa i te tae atu ki konei, hei rongo ki te otinga nei.

E tika atu i runga i te tū nei, e mihi kau ana ki te Minita a Chris Finlayson, mō tōna kaha i te tae atu i konei. I a rātou ngā Kaimahi pērā i a koutou e Hone, tēnā koutou. Tērā anō te mea i roto i te kōrero mō te Whare nei, “E waihotia atu tātou, rātou.” E mihi kau ana ki ōku hoa mahi o ngā tau o muri rā, a Michael Cullen mā, e whai atu ki te take nei. E whakaaro atu i te rangi e tae atu tātou i te tūwheratia o te whare mō te tūruhi i tō rātou wāhi, e tīmata atu tātou te hainatanga o te haerenga o te kerēme nei. Nō reira, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou, ki a rātou, tēnā tātou, i a rātou e kore i konei, ngā tūpakeke e whai atu i tēnei tino take, e mihi kau ana ki ngā rere haere, tēnā tātou.

[I really congratulate you on how you use our language in this House, as this indeed is Māori Language Week. Well done. As far as you others are concerned, I endorse the start of this settlement process by our sister colleague Tariana for you, and how you persevered to get it here, Phillip, Glen, all of you. We know that the journey to arrive at this point in time has been a really lengthy one, but despite the burdens, the ups and downs, you worked hard to get here today. It is a great day for you. Like your long wait back home, it seemed even longer waiting for this Beehive, but I salute you—greetings. Thank you for your strength and the respect of those, the descendants who began these land matters of Tūwharetoa, Maniapoto, and you of Rereahu and Raukawa; I acknowledge the leaders of those times and you all of these times. I commend you for being so resolute to get here to hear this settlement.

It is apt while I am on my feet to acknowledge the honourable Minister Christopher Finlayson, and his efforts, and those staff like you, Hone—thank you. There is a message in a quote about this House that goes like this “Leave it well alone to us and them.” I acknowledge former work colleagues of the past like Sir Michael Cullen, who addressed this issue. I recall the occasion when we were at the opening of a tourist centre in their area, where we initiated the signing of the commencement of this claim. So I acknowledge you, them, us all, and those who have passed away; greetings to us all.]

The people of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks comprise hapū affiliating to Ngāti Rereahu, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Ngāti Raukawa. So it is interesting in that sense that this settlement is certainly about the uri of those original owners, and that they were dispossessed through actions of the Crown is something that is etched in our history. That the Crown saw fit to purchase under duress and unnecessary pressure where the people wanted to lease lightly is something that we are putting right today. Maraeroa in its own right has significant wāhi tapu—there are significant wāhi tapu there—that the people certainly have preserved, not just in their hearts and minds but in practice over the years. And now to have the free run of those and that everybody else understands that it is their area is something that we need to celebrate.

The area was shared with many iwi who were able to come and go, fetching food and other relevant supplies to help their survival. It is a wonder that these four iwi come together, and I think it is a common collective that other iwi and other organisations in this country should recognise, because clearly at times it is not easy. I know that in the common Pākehā world it is not easy bringing the Churches together, even though they pray to one God, so it is great that iwi as great as Rereahu, Tūwharetoa, Raukawa, and Maniapoto have seen fit to come together to help this bill progress.

Tariana mentioned those efforts by Brian Stanley and Phillip Crown—and I really want to mihi to Phillip, who has put a lot of effort into this over the years. He has certainly shown what rangatiratanga is about. He has certainly shown what leadership is about. But I also want to recognise Glen Katu for his sterling support and awhi—genuine awhi—to make sure that this settlement got here. So in the sense of that, it is important that with pride and fondness, you know, I do recall signing the terms of negotiation at the opening of their tourist centre. It is quite a fascinating place, Maraeroa. Like where I live, it is out in the sticks, but it is a great paradise in that they have kept up with being a modern iwi in the sense of the corporate affairs they have. The businesses that they have are a good example to the rest of the country, but they see fit to not just talk the talk about the new generation but practise that, and that they have an environmentally friendly tourist centre is something to be recognised and again celebrated. And it has been a long time coming to today. It certainly has not been without their effort and that of officials and the Crown.

Unlike other settlements, this settlement is for the descendants of the original owners of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks. That is one group of the seven that were split up and partitioned, as I recall. To keep that connection not just through the cultural sense but through the bloodline sense, the whakapapa sense, is something that is certainly stirring. Whakapapa and cultural connection to what the old people have left behind generally gets put asunder by either dastardly deeds or people over-modernising and forgetting what really has given them the right to put their mantle down and stand tall as those people of that area. This in itself for me is one of the interesting settlements of these times, because it is generated out of the effort of a whole lot of iwi, but it is also something that is consistent with maintaining—and not just re-recognising, but ensuring—that people know who the descendants are, and who the uri are of those people, and they need to be commended for that.

The Government recognises that through the native land laws and the operation of the Native Land Court the Government failed to adequately provide for the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks, and there is a raft of stories in relation to what went on in Maraeroa A and B Blocks. The settlement bill also records an apology to the descendants of the original owners of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks for historical acts of omission by the Crown, including native land laws and, again, the operation of the Native Land Court, which led to the alienation of the Maraeroa lands. I think that those who understand the practice of alienation and the journey through history know that it is something that is very hard to turn round and to take back to rightfully recognise what was wrongly done. I think that the effort by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the officials, and everybody in this House, in trying to ensure our part as members of Parliament is put right is something to be very proud of.

I offer congratulations to Te Maru o Rereahu Trust and trustees, who represented the descendants of the original owners. But it is also important to recognise the transfer of a number of sites of significance to the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation, and there are a host of them. Tariana Turia went through them, and other speakers will go through them.

I do want to reiterate that this is a very, very substantial settlement in the sense of what it is, more so than the quantum. I always like to suggest to the Minister that the quantum is a bit on the low side. He could make an effort, and he could do that today, and, even at this late notice, step it up a bit—he might feel generous when he gets up to speak. But it certainly is about the practice, the design of it, and putting something terribly wrong right.

Apart from that, it shows the cohesion, the effort, and the persistence of these people who have been here to represent their people to get there through the long haul. They have come in few numbers today, but there are plenty of them up there in the gallery. I remember going there and watching these kids sitting in the trees looking down at us, wondering where the hell we came from. But it is something they need to be commended for, and I certainly am proud to be one of the members of Parliament here today to see the end of it, and to thank them for their effort and, again, thank the Minister and the officials. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I am very pleased to take a call to speak in these third readings of what are known in Parliament as cognate bills. The debate brings together a bill that is promoted by Mrs Turia as the local MP, the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill, and also the bill that gives effect to the settlement, the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill, and I am very grateful to Mrs Turia for her help during the parliamentary work that has been going on during the last couple of months.

I too stand to welcome the representatives who have come here today: the people of Ngāti Rereahu, Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tūwharetoa, and the other iwi and hapū whose ancestors make up the original owners of these blocks. I welcome you. I know that some of you have travelled a long distance to listen to the third readings of both these bills, which, as I have said, are being taken together. Today is very important for the descendants of the original owners of the blocks and the Crown, because there have been, as previous speakers have said, serious Treaty grievances. They are being addressed through this legislation, and that is going to pave the way for a very positive future. I too acknowledge all those who have worked so very, very hard to bring us to this time: the leadership, who have provided that necessary inspiration; the negotiators, who have worked for their people; and the descendants of the original owners.

I also want to acknowledge my fellow members of Parliament for their work. As Mr Horomia said, that started under the previous administration when he and Dr Michael Cullen—Sir Michael, it is now—were very involved in the terms of negotiation. After the change of Government in 2008 we continued that work. But these Treaty settlement bills are necessarily bipartisan work. Yes, one administration pushes it along, but we rely very heavily on the support of the other big party in Parliament, which understands that these are not mere deals; they are something more profound and more sacred than that. They are essential to the life of our country—undoing the burdens of the past so that we can move on together.

These blocks, as Mrs Turia said, are situated on a volcanic plateau to the east of Te Kūiti, and both she and Mr Horomia have very carefully and comprehensively set out the detail of the grievances and the redress. I do not think I need to repeat that material, lest it be thought I am reading my speech—a charge that is sometimes quite inaccurately and unfairly levelled at members of Parliament of all parties. Sometimes people take offence at that particular charge, but so often one then has to move on and demonstrate by one’s words that one is not actually reading a speech, at all.

We are allocated 10 minutes, but I do not think we need to fill the House with 10 minutes of our wisdom; sometimes a short, pithy, and focused address is what is required. But I do want to acknowledge the support of all members of Parliament. The Māori Affairs Committee is a very important select committee in this place, run under the chairmanship of the resourceful and the indomitable Mr Henare. He grabs hold of these bills when they go to the select committee and he and his colleagues deal with them very efficiently indeed.

The only other point I wanted to make is to pick up on what I think Louisa Wall said last week, which was that these are important occasions for Parliament. I cannot see it from here, but I would be surprised if anyone from the press gallery was here today. I think it is a great dishonour—oh no, it was Brendan Horan, I think, who said it was a great disappointment—because today we are dealing, through extended hours and then this afternoon, with the third readings of four settlement bills. I think they were described in the newspaper last week as small settlement bills. Well, I actually think that term is rather offensive, because all bills are important, all Treaty grievances are unique—to use that term as it should be used—and all are very important to the future of our country. The quantum in this matter may be relatively small—and Mr Horomia always does that trick of standing up and saying in the third reading speech, from the comfort of Opposition: “Oh, you could increase the quantum.”; it is a little ruse he and I have—but, none the less, these are very important matters. They are important to the country, and they ought to be publicised a lot more than they are.

So that is, I think, enough from me. As I have demonstrated, I am not reading my speech. I am very happy—very happy—to welcome the good folk of Waikato here today. I thank them for their perseverance and their hard work. This is a great day for you, and I very much look forward to a positive relationship between the Crown and the incorporation in the years to come.

That often is regarded as some kind of formulaic statement, but it is not. It is very important, and somehow we have got a lot of work to do on it, to make sure that the undertakings that are given in settlement bills are carried through in the years that follow. I think one of the big problems is that the Crown does not always possess the institutional memory that it should. It signs up these deeds of settlement in good faith, thanks people for their efforts, promises a good future, and then, as officials change and time moves on, it tends to forget. Well, it cannot forget, and institutionally I think we have got something to work on to make sure that in the years to come the undertakings that are given in these bills are, in fact, honoured.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, tēnā koutou. Tēnei e tāpiri atu aku mihi ki ērā i ruia mai i mua i te aroaro o te Pāremata ki a koutou, Ngāti Rereahu, Maniapoto, ā koutou hononga ki Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Raukawa, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou. Tēnei te hōnore kia tū i mua i a koutou i tēnei wā ki te tuku i ā mātou tautoko mō ngā wawata i roto i te pire nei. Ki a rātou i huri ki tua o te ārai, ki tērā o ngā kaumātua a Charlie, ka nui ngā mihi ki a ia me rātou katoa e moemoe rā i tēnei wā. E whea ngā tau kua hipa kia tae atu ki tēnei rangi ki te tutuki ēnei o ngā kaupapa. E hari koa ana te ngākau ki tērā.

[Thank you, and greetings to you collectively. I add my acknowledgments to those ones cast by others before Parliament to you, Ngāti Rereahu and Manaiapoto, and your connections to Tūwharetoa and Ngāti Raukawa, a huge tribute to you. I am honoured to stand before you at this time to give our support in regard to the aspirations in this bill. To those who have passed on and to that one of the elders, Charlie, a huge tribute to him, and to all of the others resting there at this point in time. Many, many years have passed by before reaching this day whereby one of these matters is concluded. I am very happy about that.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to join those speeches that have already been given in the House today to support the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill. My only regret is that this was not done when I was the local member, but I am pleased that Minister Turia has been able to ensure that in her time this particular agreement has been reached.

I have no fear for the opportunities that lie ahead of Ngāti Rereahu, the descendants of the owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks, and what they will be able to create from this particular opportunity. I too am not going to go through the history of the legislation, except to comment briefly that as these lands abut the Pureora, a hotly contested space between Tūwharetoa, Raukawa, Rereahu, and Maniapoto, I think the far-reaching ambition of a settlement like this is what the economic opportunity could hold for, certainly, the descendants who will benefit from this legislation. Economic development in this particular part of the country is no new thing. I am ambitious for the aspirations of the descendants of this settlement to see that from small things great things will grow.

Minister Turia and Parekura Horomia pointed to the Pā Harekeke development, but really the context of that development was in the space of their tourism potential. If you get people to come to New Zealand, albeit they go to Auckland, we all know they go to Waitomo; if they could travel through the beautiful Pureora on their way to Taupō or Rotorua, we are all winners—and on the way back through Maungatautari, may I add. But this is the broader regional tourism strategy that could be leveraged off a settlement like this with some of the developments that are currently happening in this particular area.

Also under the banner of Maraeroa, they have been no stranger to forging new opportunities and being a bit brave and taking risks in the space of new developments. I am pointing specifically to the ginseng initiative and looking for export markets in places such as China. There will be a lot of leverage off this particular settlement. When is enough ever enough, one might say, on the matter of Treaty settlements? I would say from a historical perspective probably no Treaty settlement has addressed fully the level of historical hurt that has been caused, but I am under no cloud of a doubt that the opportunities going forward look bright.

This Maraeroa A and B Blocks Settlement Bill is being heard co-jointly with the incorporation bill, which is a private bill. The unique thing about that is that specific claimants are identified as beneficiaries of the agreements that have been reached here today now. Again, I would add that in the day and age of comprehensive settlements, what Maraeroa have been able to achieve for their direct descendants is, I think, something of an ambition for many areas whose people themselves feel pulled and constrained by having to come together under a larger collective and comprehensive settlement. Where it is possible, I think the go-forward learning opportunity—and certainly, Minister Finlayson, you have set the foundation for that—if it can be reached, where direct descendants can be compensated for a particular grievance, is a model that we should aspire to try to achieve, if the very purpose is to ensure that the direct benefits go to those descendants.

Within the context of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks there will be other comprehensive aspects to settlements around them that no doubt they will be involved with, but I want to say that the particular agreements with, say, for example, the Department of Conservation are to be supported. One of the names mentioned in this House often on this legislation is recognition of Piripi Crown, who recently received a Queen’s honour. We were very proud as a people to be able to support that honour, because he has made a huge contribution not only in the preservation of local knowledge and history and iwi knowledge and history in the wider Maniapoto area, but also in his tenacity to ensure that those values associated with the Department of Conservation estate can be shared with every New Zealander who has the good fortune to pass through the Maniapoto region. He has added so much richness to our tribal knowledge and our historical knowledge of those Department of Conservation estates. I am only too pleased to see that that can continue.

Minister Finlayson, you made the comment that it is your great desire to see that the institutional learning and knowledge of Treaty settlements can be carried forward. I too have the same expectation, because I think when we consider what happens beyond Treaty settlements, it is that institutional knowledge that will make a difference. The devil of the detail is all in the eating and in the implementation. What we do see many times throughout this Treaty settlement process, in the post-settlement phase, is a little bit of a lag time, because people change in the Government sector, and then iwi have to retell their stories and try to develop new relationships. It is my sincere hope, certainly from this side of the House, that we can work on strengthening our collective response to improving the ability for iwi to go forward. I can see the scenario that where you have Treaty settlement tribes who are looking forward to the future, because they have settled the historical grievances of the past, they are able to leverage from their Treaty settlements in a way that the Government says: “Well, look, you’re a Treaty settlement tribe.”, and if they have got a submission that goes to the Ministry of Science and Innovation or to the Ministry of Education, they have a place of priority, because they have already gone down the path of resolving their historical grievances, and they want to focus on the future for the benefit of their people.

Certainly, in regard to Maraeroa A and B Blocks, as I say, I have no hesitation about what the future holds here, as long as the leverage of their relationship can be realised through some very strong, innovative projects in the space of tourism, in the space of innovation, and in the space of developing new export markets for economic potential.

With that brief contribution, I would like to commend the Government for giving this matter urgency and priority. To the local member, Tariana Turia, thank you. Your commitment to Maniapoto and the wider Maniapoto region is acknowledged. To the Māori Affairs Committee, to the advisers, and to the Office of Treaty Settlements officials, who labour long and hard on behalf of the Crown—and who, I am sure, enjoy many Panadols after each session that they have on the various Treaty settlements they work on—I want to commend you for your work on these two bills. Kia ora.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ko te mihi nui o te ata ki a koutou. On behalf of the Greens, we add our greetings to, and our acknowledgment of, the representatives who are in the House today of Ngāti Rereahu, Maniapoto, Tūwharetoa, Raukawa, me ngā hapū katoa o Te Rohe Pōtae. We acknowledge the very long and difficult journey that has hit a milestone today. We acknowledge those who have done a great deal of work in the past but, sadly, are not here to see the fruits of that effort, and we acknowledge the current leadership of those people, who today are seeing some recompense, some return of their mana, and some acknowledgment of the very difficult time that has gone on.

As well as offering some recompense to the individual cases, to ngā hapū, and to ngā whānau, settlement bills also create a very important and powerful historical record of this country’s history. Within the text of each of these bills are the stories, the histories, the explanations, the knowledge. They make a huge contribution potentially to the general knowledge and understanding of all New Zealanders of the need to resolve the inevitable issues that have emerged from our history—our very rich and interesting history but one that has, nevertheless, left grievances in its wake. By combining that collective knowledge and experience and making it accessible to people in this way, the legislation does provide a very powerful mechanism for increasing understanding and acceptance of the need to go through these sometimes difficult processes.

I recently found myself in one of those conversations that, unfortunately, I am sure we have all experienced, with a person who insisted that “this whole Treaty business”, as he liked to call it, should simply be put aside because: “It’s all just something that happened in the past. Let’s just get over it and get on with the business of the day.” The encouraging thing is that one finds oneself having that conversation less often. I think there is much more general acceptance that only by going through these sometimes painful processes will we get genuine resolution of past grievances and create the opportunity, create the platform, for both Māori and non-Māori to advance and to aspire to a future that we can all share and thrive within.

I am always reminded of the wisdom, I think—albeit, he acknowledged, wisdom in hindsight—of David Williams, who some years after his own term on the Waitangi Tribunal proposed that perhaps we had jumped too quickly into the settlement process, and that perhaps we ought first to have gone through something like a truth and reconciliation process to get buy-in, to use that phrase, to the necessity of working through these settlement processes on the individual bases, on the individual claims. We did not do that, of course, but I do think there is some sense in that when, as well as dealing with individual claims and processes, I think we all need to advocate very strongly for the contemporary importance in the 21st century of resolving historical grievances and creating those opportunities that are so richly deserved by people who have suffered over many generations from the unfortunate actions of the past generations.

These cognate bills, these two bills being taken together—the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill—are of particular interest. This is my first experience of a bill that creates this legal entity, this incorporation, which will effectively be the manager or the overseer of the outcome of this legislation. I think that principle of an incorporation captures quite nicely the approach of Māori historically, because we know that the resources—the very rich resources—in the area under discussion in this legislation were shared amongst the hapū who have been named and described. It captures the notion that resources could be shared, could be collectively enjoyed and benefited from. I think the notion of an incorporation does something to turn back the practice of the Crown, particularly in the mid-19th century, that sought to divide and rule, to divide, to assign individual title to these blocks, rather than allow the collective mechanism, the negotiated mechanism, to advance as it had done for a very long time. It is a nice step back to a principle and to a practice that did work for Māori for a very long time—the notion of sharing resources and collective benefit from that sharing.

The point has been made that these settlements, as well as healing the past and as well as restoring mana to those whose mana has been trampled, create an economic platform for development. The point was quite rightly made by Mr Horomia that it is unfortunate there seems to be a distinct lack of media interest in some of this. The very positive exception to that, of course, is Māori Television, and I look forward with real interest to a forthcoming series about economic development within Māoridom—some good-news stories about Māori converting settlement money and other resources into building an economic future for themselves and for their people. I know that one of the episodes in that series will specifically refer to the ginseng project—the Maraeroa C Incorporation initiated process. It is an innovative project. It is one that will give an income, a high-end income, to the people in a particular area. I think we need to celebrate those successes and look forward to these settlements, the material return—the money and the land that is involved in these settlements—being converted into a much better and richer future for Māori. If Māori do well, we know very well that the rest of Aotearoa will do as well, also.

So with those few words I simply would reiterate our regard for the work that has been done and the long toil of the hapū concerned. Also, I have to acknowledge Mrs Turia for her specific work in this and her commitment to this kaupapa, this particular legislation. We look forward to a much brighter future as an outcome of this and other settlements. Kia ora koutou.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): E ngā reo, e ngā mana, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I would like to say that I am very privileged to be able to stand here today and speak on these settlement bills for the Maraeroa A and B Blocks, the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill.

Can I say as a new member of the Māori Affairs Committee that it is a good, hard-working committee that seeks to bring the best solution to these settlement claims. Even last week, when the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations came in, there was very strong support and recognition for his work right across the committee. So I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work that the Hon Christopher Finlayson has been doing in these last number of years seeking to bring durable redress to settle not just claims but hearts. I think that is important to note. I noted his words that these settlements lift burdens. It is not just the burden of grievance but the burden of irresponsibility of the Crown in the past to have seen some of these things take place.

I believe that today, as we go through these third readings, it is a wonderful thing, a celebration, to see those burdens lifted and to see the redress, and the acknowledgment, and the return of mana, and the return of culturally significant wāhi tapu areas, and also to see commercial redress come to the people of this particular area in the central North Island, which I have driven through I would think probably three or four times over the last 3 or 4 months, and certainly it is a beautiful part of our nation.

I think that what we see in the settlement process is not just the redress of the past, which is incredibly important. I would like to acknowledge the tīpuna who suffered that loss in the first instance, and also those who, through the years, lived in memory of that loss, those who are not here today, cannot be here today. You here now carry their hearts with you, and today you can have that sense of celebration and settlement in your heart as well that things have progressed as they ought to have progressed.

As to what this does, I believe, in terms of our nation, we are a small nation, but we can be a great nation, no matter how small or large we may be. That is going to be based upon the partnership of people. That is going to be based upon respect and acknowledgment—acknowledging that people have their place, and it is their place—as we are more united, with all the differences that make this an intriguing place, Aotearoa New Zealand. As we acknowledge one another with respect, and give due place, and enable people to stand and have economic independence, I believe that we will go from strength to strength. Many of the things that we are redressing have caused weakness, not only weakness for hapū and iwi but also weakness through the fabric of our nation. So it is with great gladness today that I stand in support of what is happening here.

I acknowledge the work of the Minister and also the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. I also acknowledge the work of the negotiators, both for hapū and iwi and for the Crown. I trust and hope that today will be a great day of satisfaction for all. Kia ora.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): Before I start I would like to reiterate some of the words of my colleagues about the press. Here we are, this is Māori Language Week, and they cannot get off their backsides and be in that gallery. Yet this afternoon, at 2 o’clock, they will be there, clinging on to the slightest thing they can find. They will be judging parliamentarians’ literacy skills, and you will see it in the headlines tomorrow. And yet here we are today, a landmark day in New Zealand’s history, where stories are rich—some stories today are going to be devastating stories. They are our history, and the history of New Zealand, but are these foreign-paid journalists here? No.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: This is a really bad idea.

BRENDAN HORAN: A really bad idea? I do not care what they print about me. I am telling you how it is. They should be here. They had warning. This is an important day.

All over New Zealand and, indeed, in parts of the world people are actually live-streaming this broadcast and watching. For those people, I think it is important that the stories are told, so stories can be heard and understanding given.

Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ahau, tīhei mauri ora. E ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā mana, e ngā mātāwaka, tēn ā tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E rau rangatira mā ka mihi ake i runga i te karanga o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[The muttonbird and parrot calls, and I call, as well, behold the sneeze of life. To the tribes, languages, authorities, and kinship groups, greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you all. To the many leaders of a hundredfold, I acknowledge you on the call of the day, greetings, greetings, and greetings to us all.]

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the third readings of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill. This is one of the longest court disputes in our country’s history, starting in the 1800s.

Three brothers spent around 50 years fighting for thousands of acres of native forest land, some of it confiscated by the Government under the guise of unpaid surveying fees, and in some cases dubiously bought. As records indicate from different deeds of sale in the 1890s, some of the sellers were as young as 1 year old. That sounds ridiculous, does it not? But it is all well documented, and, sadly, many of these happenings are merely a microcosm of what happened all over New Zealand. The three brothers were Wehi Te Ringitanga, Tāroa Te Ringitanga, and Tūtaki Te Ringitanga. With today’s agreement to settle and an unequivocal apology from the Crown, these three tupuna can now finally rest in peace.

The land in question is special, for many reasons. Aside from being fertile forestry land—I would add that during the 1960s the Pureroa and Maraeroa Blocks were the largest supplier of native timber in the world—it is also the place where Rereahu died. Rereahu was the father of Maniapoto and his older brother Matakore, and also the uncle of Kārewa, and therefore we have the hapū Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Matakore, and Ngāti Kārewa.

As far as settlements go, there is real generosity of spirit shown by the claimants in settling for 2,500 acres, with 500 hectares of that being gifted back to the Crown for a wildlife corridor between two forestry blocks, and much of the other land there under certain conservation covenants. The financial redress amounts to just over $2 million, with an extra $40,000 set aside for the buy-back of 2 hectares, being the actual area where Rereahu died, which, unbelievably, sadly, and for all intents and purposes, is now owned by the Chinese owners of the Crafar farms. However, with the apology a shift of consciousness is granted, and affected descendants can now move into a consciousness of self-responsibility and self-determination.

This settlement is, and has been, an extremely complicated journey, and New Zealand First congratulates the generosity of spirit of the claimants in settling so that people can truly move forward, Māori and Pākehā together.

I would also take this moment to acknowledge two of Ngāti Maniapoto’s giant tōtara—their kaumātua. The first is Piripi Crown, one of the negotiators and a caretaker of immense knowledge not only for Tainui but for all Māori. I would also give Piripi’s apology for not being here today. He would if he could, but he is bravely battling cancer. He is doing OK, but he is just not well enough to be here today. I know that he is at home and watching us on parliamentary TV right now.

The other kaumātua for special acknowledgment is former Labour MP and Minister Koro Wētere. Koro will probably be embarrassed by this acknowledgment, because, apart from being cursed with extreme good looks, he is extremely modest. I want it known that New Zealand owes Koro a debt of gratitude, as he was the driving force behind the 1985 change in legislation that allowed Treaty settlement claims—historical grievances—as far back as 1840 to be heard. Prior to that change, one could claim back only to 1975. So thanks to Koro historical grievances can truly be heard, shared, and accounted for, as well as important history acknowledged, and greater understanding—between Māori and whānau, hapū, and iwi, and Pākehā—granted.

Koro cannot be here today as well, and I offer his apology, as he is over in Perth, Western Australia. But he assures me he is not one of those young people who has gone and is not going to return. On behalf of Piripi Crown and Koro Wētere, and in the spirit of today’s kaupapa, I will now deliver their waiata.

Tēnā koutou, e whānau mā,

Kua tae mai nei i tēnei rā.

Nō reira rā, e hoa mā,

Kia ora rā, koutou katoa.

Kua rongo hoki ahau,

Kua rongo hoki ahau,

Kua rongo hoki ahau, kei te haere mai koutou.

Nō reirā rā, e whānau mā,

Kia ora rā, koutou katoa.

[Greetings to the family

Who have arrived here today.

And so therefore, friends,

Acknowledgments to you all.

I have heard,

I have heard,

And I have heard, that you are coming.

And so therefore, family,

Acknowledgments, to you all.]

Nā reira, Rereahu te iwi, Miringa-te-Kakara te marae. Maraeroa te aro o te hapū, hoki mai kua iti ngā whenua. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[So Rereahu is the tribe, and Miringa-te-Kakara is the marae. I say unto the subtribe, pay attention to Maraeroa—very few lands are coming back. Acknowledgments to you all.]

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi, he mihi pōuri au ki te teina o taku hungarei i hinga atu inanahi rā. Nō reira, e Mere, hoki atu ki te kāinga. I te tāima nei i haere ia ki tana ūkaipō, ki tana whānau, nō reira, haere atu rā, haere atu rā, haere atu rā.

Ā, koutou mā, ngā mihi nunui ki a koutou i haere mai nei i runga i te kaupapa o te rā nei. Nō reira, ka nui te mihi, ka nui te ora ki a koutou katoa. Ki ōku tuākana, Parekura, tēnā koe mō tō kaha, mō tō tautoko i tēnei kaupapa i roto i tēnei Whare, nō reira, he mihi nui ki a koe me ō hoa. Ki ōku hoa nei i roto i te Rōpū Nāhinara kei runga i te Komiti Māori, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou i ō koutou manaakitanga i ngā manuhiri i mua i te komiti nei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[First of all, I have sad tidings about my mother-in-law’s younger sister, who passed away yesterday. So return home, Mary. At this point in time she is on the way to her birthplace, to her family, so farewell, farewell, farewell.

A huge acknowledgment to you collectively who came here because of today’s bill. So I admire and feel much benevolence to you all. To my senior colleagues—Parekura, I acknowledge your strength and support in this matter in this House, so big ups to you and your fellow colleagues. Also to my fellow members of the National Party on the Māori Affairs Committee, I acknowledge the part you have played in looking after visitors who come before that committee. So thank you all.]

Vincent Van Gogh once said: “Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together.” I reserve that quote from Vincent Van Gogh for our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who, I must say, has been rather dynamic in bringing together the Treaty settlements since we got into the position of being in Government in 2008. So I hope he continues on in his vein of wanting to bring together settlements for the nation, so that the nation moves on to its next stage—as I mentioned in the House last week—in its fantastic tapestry of stories.

I will not speak for that long on the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill or the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill. Suffice it to say that what we have here is a convergence of mana, a convergence of Tūwharetoa, Rereahu, Raukawa, and Maniapoto. It is similar, and I liken it, to looking at a map of America. Down the bottom part of the map of America is the convergence of four states; it is called Four Corners. The Navajo and the Hopi people live in and around the Four Corners. It is, I think, from memory, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. This is what I liken this settlement to today: it is a convergence of mana, a convergence of iwi wanting to get on, wanting to move from one stage to the next.

I am heartened to hear the words from my colleague and friend the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who talks about the fact that one of the issues that we could see coming out of this settlement is the burgeoning tourism opportunities that people have. But I do have a message for one of the parties in this House: step aside from being too intrusive in terms of the Resource Management Act and let these people just get on with it. I will not mention the party, because they have their kaupapa, and it is their kaupapa. But, like I said, suffice it to say they should have a little bit of faith in the people who are wanting to establish businesses and establish ventures that will eventually help the others.

The last thing I want to say is that it is quite unusual to see two bills together like this. One is about the post-settlement governance arrangements, and one is about the settlement itself. I am also mindful of the comments of the Hon Parekura Horomia, where he said that it is not much, and maybe there should be more. I think every member of Parliament in this House realises that it should be more. It seems when we are doing Treaty settlements that there has always been an economic crisis, because we are the ones who have to accept the lower amount. Hoi anō, kāore tērā e hōhā au ki taku Minita. [I will not bother my Minister with that.]

This is a fine day, this is a good day, and we should revel in the fact that we have reached this stage. It is not the end of the story, by any means, but it is certainly part of the story that if you were to turn the page tomorrow, it would be the start of a new chapter. A, hoi anō, kāore au i hiahia ki te whakahōhā i a koutou; nō reira, ka mihi ki a koutou katoa, ngā mōrehu o ngā aituā. Koutou mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[So I do not want to bother you lot with that, so my acknowledgments to you all, the survivors of the tragedies. So, salutations, acknowledgments, and congratulations to you, and to us all.]

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr. Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko wai au? Ko Tongariro te maunga, ko Taupō te moana, ko Waikato te awa, ko Ngāti Tūwharetoa me Waikato ngā iwi. Ngā mihi, ngā mihi, ngā mihi ki ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Ngāti Rereahu, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Raukawa me ngā whānau o te Rohe Pōtae, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you Mr. Speaker. To the authorities, languages and the many leaders of a hundredfold, greetings, greetings and greetings to you all. Who am I? Tongariro is the mountain, Taupō is the lake, Waikato is the river, Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Waikato are the tribes. Acknowledgments, greetings and salutations to families and subtribes of Ngāti Rereahu, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Raukawa and King Country. Greetings to you all.]

It is my pleasure to be a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I represent the electorate of Manurewa, and I also sit on that committee with my colleagues the Hon Parekura Horomia and Rino Tirikatene. I want to acknowledge our chair, the Hon Tau Henare, and also the two Ministers who are overseeing these two bills, the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill, the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Tariana Turia. I am really privileged to be on the Māori Affairs Committee.

It is a privilege to be part of this Treaty settlement and redress process. It is a process that I think affirms tangata whenua identity, that affirms mana whenua identity, and that affirms the status of our hapū and our iwi in our country as the first Sovereign. I want to acknowledge that status and the acknowledgment of that status through that process. It is a status that needs to be acknowledged by everybody. We are not just another racial group in Aotearoa, we are not just another ethnic group, and I think that this process consolidates that for all of us.

I want to take the opportunity to talk about some of the wāhi tapu sites that will be returned in this settlement process. The reason I want to highlight the return of these wāhi tapu sites is because of how precious this whenua is for the whānau of Maraeroa. We have the return of Ngā Herenga, Koromiko, Kōtukunui, Pikiariki, Whareana, and Pureora o Kahu. There is also an acknowledgment of the historical and traditional sites of Ngā Herenga Pā site, Ngā Turi o Hinetu, Te Punawai a Waipapa, and Ōpaku.

What I want to say is that this Treaty settlement process actually started in 1891. It did not start post-1985, when the Crown established the process. Actually it started right back in 1891 when the lands were taken. I want to acknowledge what Brendan said about the three brothers and the fight for justice that the whānau of Maraeroa have gone through, like every other iwi group in our country. It was not some other group who confiscated these lands, who perpetrated these inequalities; it was the Crown. So I want to acknowledge, really, the generosity of spirit that Brendan talked about, and the ethic of generosity in the settlement of all Treaty settlements, because what we do know is that iwi and hapū get a fraction of what they are entitled to. It is just a fraction, but with that fraction I know that it will multiply.

So I share my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta’s position that the whānau will now have an asset base, and it is for us to do with that asset base as we want to. If we look at the history, I will use Nanaia’s tribe of Tainui. They got their settlement. It was $170 million, and now that asset base is more than $650 million. So what we do know is that Māori are definitely going to be part of the future fabric and economic drivers of the New Zealand economy.

I want to acknowledge also the ethic of forgiveness that these Treaty settlements actually provide our country with. It is that forgiveness about what has occurred in the past: the fact that lands were taken, they were taken under duress, and they were taken because surveyors did not survey the lands properly. But basically they were taken to give to other people to build an asset base whereby they and their families have been able to enjoy a quality of life that unfortunately some of our whānau have not. So I celebrate the opportunity of our whānau to have this asset base, and to actually realise what tino rangatiratanga means. For a lot of us, you cannot have tino rangatiratanga if you do not have a whenua to stand on, if you do not have a base, a capital base, to be able to build a future for whānau.

So I just want to thank the whānau of Maraeroa for this settlement. I will acknowledge the Crown’s contribution to it, but a lot of the people involved in the Crown’s part of the equation are paid employees. The whānau are not paid. The whānau have come down here of their own volition. We have not given you any money to be here, and you are here because this really provides a starting point for you to get on and contribute positively, as you already are doing, to our country. So I want to acknowledge the opportunity that this settlement provides.

But I also want to highlight the post-Treaty relationship that all iwi need to start forging with the Crown. That post-Treaty settlement is about our taking our rightful place around some decision-making spaces in our country, whether it be on the conservation board, whether it be a formal part of resource management processes—whatever they might be. The post-Treaty phase for whānau, hapū, and iwi is about our being around that decision-making table. So I acknowledge all whānau who are here today.

I just want to reiterate again that it is a privilege for me to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. It has been a pleasure for us to be involved in this bill and the further bills that we will hear today, and I commend the bills to the House. Thank you.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe e te Kaiwhakawā. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Rau rangatira mā tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi rangatira o Ngāti Rereahu, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa, me Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa. E te Minita, ka pai, ka pai te mahi. Nō reira e te Whare tēnā koutou.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and the House. I acknowledge you, the many leaders in respect of the matter of the day. Salutations to the chiefly tribes of Ngāti Rereahu, Ngati Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa, and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Greetings and acknowledgments to you all. It is a task well done, Minister. So congratulations to you, the House.]

I am proud as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee to stand in this final reading of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks settlement legislation. I think these third readings are a really special occasion for the House and for every parliamentarian, but, more important, for those of you who travel to witness this very special occasion. So I welcome you here and I thank you for being part of this very special day. This settlement is, of course, in the volcanic plateau to the east of Te Kūiti, which is, of course, very strongly connected to my heart as the member of Parliament for Taupō.

I just want to reflect on some of the comments that my colleagues have made and, in particular, just talk about the benefits that these sorts of Treaty settlements bring, because I do not think it is something that we reflect on often enough. I am particularly proud of this Government’s record in bringing Treaty settlements to a conclusion, for a number of reasons. I do want to acknowledge Ministers Finlayson and Turia for working at the pace that they do to bring these to their conclusion, so that we can have days like today. If I look at the wider Waikato region and the absolute powerhouse that Tainui have become, it really provides me with such excitement about what is possible for our wider region with these sorts of settlements.

I look back at an experience I had recently, which was attending a tourism meeting in the small town of Mangakino. I heard about some of the tourism opportunities that have sprung up around that area that highlight the beauty of the Pureora Forest. The thing that really impressed me was the fact that they are able, with this business opportunity, to share the stories—to share your stories—with others, and to have it as a completely experiential visit. It is completely in partnership with the environment. I think that there are so many opportunities. They weave in the stories of your culture and the stories of that place, and share them with others. I think it is really fantastic that that is one of many businesses that are popping up around Pureora.

For the wider Taupō electorate, as Nanaia Mahuta talked about as well, there is an area there that is somewhat undiscovered—not, of course, for the iwi, but for many others. If we look at, in the northern area, the mighty Maungatautari, we are finally seeing that there are stories being shared there. If we look at the development of the Waikato River trail, there are areas of beauty that are finally being opened up, and that benefits all of us. It is also no surprise, as we talk about the volcanic plateau, the level of energy that is there. I am sure that, as my colleague Tau Henare says, the convergence of iwi and the convergence of mana brings great energy to the district.

I do also want to bring back into the House the comment that was made by Brendan Horan. I agree that the stories of days like today, the stories about the conclusion of your journey, are not shared widely enough. As fantastic storytellers, that is the one regret I have—that the stories of occasions like today are not known widely enough. I have looked at media reports in this area to see what local reporting there has been of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks, and I have found nothing. That saddens me, because it means that the wider community does not have sufficient understanding of your history, of your journey, and of this story. I do think it is important that we are able to share the stories, to share the stories of the past and the conflict, but, more important, to share the stories of the resolution. That is the story that will take us forward: the story of the resolution, of the conclusion that has been reached on the Maraeroa A and B Blocks for Rereahu, for Maniapoto, for Raukawa, and for Tūwharetoa, for your descendants, for those who will benefit not just for today but for tomorrow. So that is one plea that I do have: that we collectively make sure that the stories of these settlements are shared.

It has been interesting because you have demonstrated your ability to resolve differences, and I think the other thing that is not shared enough is that these are occasions where every political party in the House votes unanimously. It does not happen that often. But the ability of us to work together as a House to make progress in these Treaty settlements, to make days like today possible, is because of a high level of cooperation among all the political parties in the House, and the management skills of the select committee chair, Tau Henare. I do have to say, though—I do not want you under any illusion—the Māori Affairs Committee does not always work smoothly. We do not always agree. We do have some rather robust discussions and debate, which I am sure you would agree is necessary from time to time. As my colleague has just piped up behind me, he said that sometimes it is not just across the select committee; it is within political parties as well.

I am very proud to be here with you today, to share in your story, and to help your word get out in the success and the resolution of the Maraeroa A and B Blocks settlement claim. Congratulations. This is a day that we shall remember and celebrate, where iwi come together, where the community comes together, and, I believe, the country should come together. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te manuhiri tūārangi, nau mai, haere mai ki te Pāremata e takatū nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you. Greetings to you, the visitors from afar, welcome, welcome to Parliament in readiness here, salutations and greetings to you all.]

It gives me great pleasure to speak at the final reading of these two bills for the Maraeroa A and B Blocks. May I acknowledge the claimants with us today, those descendants of eponymous ancestors of different but related iwi. This is the uniqueness of this claim. The claimants are related by whakapapa to common ancestors who roamed between Taupō-nui-a-Tia, Kāwhia, and Maungatautari long before the Treaty was signed in 1840.

These illustrious tūpuna go back hundreds of years, before Captain Hobson had even heard of Kororāreka, the Bay of Islands, and Waitangi. They go back to a time of the extended whānau of Raukawa and his sons and grandsons, and the relationships they had with the lakeside people of Tūwharetoa, who were the descendants of Tia of the Te Arawa canoe, and Raukawa being of the Tainui waka. And while there was the decision to allow a claim that for all intents and purposes pre-dates the Treaty, the reality is that this type of historical kōrero of whakapapa and whanaungatanga is common throughout all Aotearoa. Indeed, there is no Māori history without whakapapa.

The descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks acknowledge the special nature of this settlement, and they acknowledge the leadership of Te Maru o Rereahu. The descendants also have interests in other claims via their separate iwi, such as Raukawa, Maniapoto, Tainui waka, among others.

May I make mention of a particular area of interest for me in this whole affair—that is, the Maraeroa settlements—and that is the work of the Crown surveyors, discrepancies in surveys, and the survey cost. It is a real mamae that has really hurt these descendants, these whānau. As Mr Young mentioned, it goes to the heart of irresponsibility of the Crown in the past.

In 1866, surveys for the blocks were incomplete and sketch plans only were available. The absence of proper surveys caused discrepancies. Consequently, there was alienation of land and therefore alienation of the owners’ mana. It seems to me that the work of Stephen Percy Smith, Surveyor-General, who went on to become an ethnologist and recorded a lot of Māori history, needs to be called into question. For want of not following a ridge line to its conclusion or a creek to its source, these claimants have been alienated from thousands of acres—4,200 to be exact. I am not calling into disrepute his honesty in what he recorded, but how he recorded it. The Crown’s mistakes have led to people being given mana by being named on ownership lists, only for another inquiry to take that mana away by the removal of those names; back and forward it went, on and off the list—not satisfactory at all. I will make mention of the survey costs and how they became a burden for most of the owners. The only way out from such a burdensome debt was to alienate their land, an outcome all too inevitable and seemingly underhanded.

I mentioned in my second reading speech the role of whakapapa and how the hapū that settled the boundaries between iwi were generally takawaenga families that joined one iwi to another. This is true of all takiwā and rohe throughout the motu, and the uri of this bill are no different. But I make the point that this case is for all Māoridom, because to understand, again, and acknowledge whakapapa is to understand and acknowledge Māori history.

I would like to echo and support—tautoko—the comments that have been made by colleagues around the House, in terms of this settlement and the significance of it, of this historic occasion. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on this settlement bill, the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill, today. Today is about righting the wrongs of the past. I would like to acknowledge the presence of the iwi and hapū groups here today. You may be small in numbers but you are mighty in every other way. I would also like to acknowledge those who came on the journey—this very long journey that you have been on—and who are no longer with us today, and all the work they have done to ensure that we are here today for the third reading of this settlement bill. I would like to acknowledge your graciousness in allowing the Crown to apologise and remedy the past. I would also like to acknowledge the Maraeroa A and B Trust and also the chair, Phillip Ngāwhira Crown, for all the leadership you have shown. Sometimes we as members of Parliament sit back and look at the true leadership you have shown, and the hardship you have gone through to get here today.

This deed of settlement was signed on 12 March 2011. It has got to this House pretty swiftly for this type of settlement bill. I would like to acknowledge Minister Finlayson and Minister Turia for the work they have put into this bill, but also the Māori Affairs Committee, under the leadership of Tau Henare. He has always said of every bill that comes to our committee on Treaty settlements that it must move swiftly through the select committee and that it needs to come into the House very quickly because iwi have waited long enough to have their day in this House.

This is about remedying the wrongs of when the Native Land Court was operational and when the Crown purchased the majority of blocks and the iwi received no benefits from the redistribution of their lands and forests. This deprived iwi in many, many ways: spiritually, of their land, and it deprived future generations of culture, of heritage, and of tradition. But today, right here, right now, is about focusing on the future. It is about developing and investing in the social, economic, and cultural aspects of the redress package. It is about the future generations to come. This redress package includes historical acknowledgment, vesting sites of cultural and historical significance, a partnership with the Department of Conservation over public conservation lands, a financial settlement of $1.8 million, and redress over Crown properties, including licensed forest land. But, most important to me, it records the apology from the Crown for past wrongs.

This is a settlement that is future focused. It is a settlement that is going to move iwi forward and move future generations forward with prosperity, with spirit, with tradition, and with culture. Today will be part of history. We hear from the other speakers how important it is that we tell our stories of the history and what has gone before, where we are now, and what there is for the future. With my other colleagues, I find it disappointing that the media do not show an interest in this, because they do record our future, they do record our past, and they do record the present, and they are not here doing that today. I think they have let New Zealanders down.

These Treaty settlement bills, to me, are two pillars between iwi and the Crown. They are pillars with which we can move forward. On the Māori Affairs Committee we are very focused on these bills getting here very quickly. We have many Treaty settlement bills in front of the select committee and they are very important. We focus and prioritise all our work around iwi and those bills. We travel around New Zealand when we are doing these bills in the select committee so we hear everybody’s voice in relation to these settlements. That is very unique for a select committee to do.

I wish you well for your future, I wish the next generations the very best, and I cannot wait to hear the stories coming out from this settlement and what iwi have done with that. Thank you very much.

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

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

Waiata

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As has been customary when we are progressing settlement bills, there is another group who wish to enter the gallery. If I can ask the whānau who have been here for these particular bills to exit the gallery, to allow the whānau for the next bill to come in. There will be a delay in proceedings while that does happen.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important that the whānau up there know that they are also welcome to stay.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is true. I thank the member for his point of order. I was not aware that the whānau for the second bill were already seated. They are welcome to stay if they wish to. I am not requesting that anybody leave, so if I have inadvertently given that message I do apologise. Whānau are welcome and there is plenty of room. There is plenty of room around the sides. Given that explanation and that I am now aware that the whānau from the second bill are present, I will call Government order of the day No. 3.

Bills

Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for Whānau Ora) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Whakapaura te maunga, Rotoehu te moana, Whakahau te tangata, Mākino te iwi. Ka nui te mi’i ki a koutou Ngāti Mākino kua tae tinana mai mō tēnei, te pānui mutunga o tō koutou pire. Kei te mi’i ’oki au ki a koutou kia kawea nei tēnei kaupapa, nō reira, e te takitahi, e te takitini, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Whakapaura is the mountain, Rotoehu is the lake, Whakahau is the person, and Mākino is the tribe. I acknowledge you greatly, Ngāti Mākino, who have arrived here in person for this, the final reading of your bill. I pay a tribute to you who will take up this matter, so to the individuals and the very many, salutations, acknowledgments, and congratulations.]

We shift our gaze of focus from Te Kūiti to the land of Ngāti Mākino, from Lake Rotoiti and Rotomā to the coast. As we gather here today, never far from our thoughts are those who have carried the mantle for Ngāti Mākino over a long and arduous journey. We think in particular of the legacy left to us by Kāwana Te Kirikau, Koro Tawa, Hoani Atutahi, Whakarewa Hunuhunu, and others.

There is no clearer context for this bill other than that set by Te Ariki Mōrehu, so I open with his words before us: “Ngati Makino has suffered loss of life, land and authority as a result of egregious Crown action. War and raupatu were inflicted upon Ngati Makino, which destroyed their political cohesion, splitting the iwi and pitting individuals and hapu against one another. These deleterious impacts were further compounded by court structures and land laws which were utilised in a way that eroded the mana, rangatiratanga and traditional Ngati Makino tribal structures. The cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions rendered Ngati Makino virtually landless as they were stripped of possessions and deprived of benefits that were used to contribute to the wealth of New Zealand.” The palpable grief and anger are inherent in the story told by Te Ariki, one that is too often shared by other iwi. The historical grievances relating to the New Zealand Wars, the operation and impact of the native land laws, the Crown’s land and purchasing techniques, and 20th century issues relating to public works and scenic reserves takings are all effects and experiences of colonial rule that have left a lasting impact on the hearts and souls of iwi throughout this land. But when the story is overlaid with the dire impacts of the Bay of Plenty confiscation, one begins to understand some of the scope of the settlement that we are debating today.

By 1992 only 0.6 percent of the combined area of the three major blocks in which Ngāti Mākino had interests remained in the hands of the iwi—0.6 percent. Is that fair? Is that just? Is that the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi represented today? We say it is not. One of the most significant aspects of the legislation we will pass through the House today is that the Crown acknowledges that certain actions or omissions of the Crown arising from the interaction with Ngāti Mākino breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles.

The final acknowledgment states: “Through these acts, the Crown, its Ministers, and government departments have dishonoured the Treaty of Waitangi, its principles, and its spirit, denigrating te mana motuhake o Ngāti Mākino. In so doing, the Crown acknowledges that it has brought dishonour upon itself.” These are very strong words, and they represent how seriously the Crown understands its obligations to restore peace and justice to the people of Ngāti Mākino.

It now falls time for these grievances to be lifted. The negotiations that have been led by Āwhi Awhimate, Te Ariki Mōrehu, Morris Meha, and Neville Nēpia have resulted in a series of measures, including that eight sites of special significance will be transferred to Ngāti Mākino, totalling 720 hectares. Three sites will be vested with Rotoehu Conservation Forest: Te Kōhanga, Ngā Pōrōtai-o-Waitaha-a-Hei, and a 3 hectare site for a wānanga; and there will be whenua rāhui for over 256 hectares of Lake Rotomā Scenic Reserve.

The financial compensation includes $6.7 million quantum and $3.6 million for the delay in settlement, 3,450 hectares of Rotoehu West Crown Forest licensed land, right of first refusal over five sites of public conservation land, and opportunity to enter a sale and lease-back agreement over Ōtamarākau School. The recognition of the delay in the process is an important feature of the settlement. The year 2012 marks two decades since the first claim was filed by Kāwana Te Kirikau.

In 1998 terms of negotiation were signed with the National Government and the Ngāti Mākino Heritage Trust, but with a change of Government the Crown withdrew from negotiations, and Ngāti Mākino were once again forced back to the Waitangi Tribunal, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court to protect their position. It was, no doubt, small comfort that in 2004 and again in 2005 the Waitangi Tribunal found that Ngāti Mākino had suffered prejudice as a result of the Crown delays in negotiating with them. We acknowledge today the frustrations and the despair that accumulated over the drawn-out negotiations, and we hope that this settlement today will alleviate that sense of injury.

Now it is time for us all, with the benefit of hindsight and in the spirit of optimism, to support the aspirations of Ngāti Mākino in moving forward. The Ngāti Mākino legislation represents efforts to restore and reconcile a relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Mākino, and in this regard I want to mihi to those amongst us in this House who have worked hard to advance this settlement—the diligent Minister Finlayson and the Hon Tau Henare—and I acknowledge too the contributions of the Hon Dr Sir Michael Cullen and the Hon Mahara Okeroa, who all played a part in smoothing the pain to reconciliation.

Alongside of the historical account and the Crown acknowledgment, statutory acknowledgements, and the deed of recognition, there is also an investment made in ongoing dialogue. Protocols are to be established with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and with the Ministry of Economic Development in respect of Crown minerals, and there will be letters of introduction with local government agencies and the Minister of Housing. A pathway to the future is charted with a payment of $500,000 to identify social service needs, and $1 million for the restoration of six marae in the Ngāti Mākino rohe. These are all milestones along a journey to move out the process of settlement and to reconstruct the collective capacity of the people.

In this spirit, it is only right to return to the words of Ngāti Mākino in the submission presented by the chairman, Awhimate Awhimate. He said: “Those who have stood at the forefront of our waka, I acknowledge you. In particular, to those kuia, koroua who stood with pride and dignity to always preserve, enhance and maintain the mana of Ngati Makino. Their diligence, determination and fortitude allowed us to maintain our identity, our individuality against oppressive governments who thought we were better served being ‘clustered’ and absorbed with other iwi. Through their perception, wisdom and foresight we finally emerge from this process ‘mana enhanced’, ‘mana intact’. This settlement is the enduring legacy they leave for our tamariki, for our mokopuna and generations to follow; that Ngati Makino stand on their own mana and we will be recognised hence forth in our own right, an iwi among iwi.” I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tika atu i runga i te tū nei e mihi kau ana ki a koutou katoa e whai kaha atu i konei i te wāhi nei i te Whare Mīere mō o koutou kaha. Ki a koutou ngā tūpakeke i a rātou e rere atu, e kore i konei, e tangi ana te ngākau. Engari, ki a koutou katoa e noho ana ki ngā roto i te wāhi rā o tō hau kāinga, e mihi kau ana. E mōhio atu tātou te roaroa haere o te kawenata nei. E rongo atu koutou ki ngā āhua o ngā pakanga, ki te tāhae hoki o te Kāwana, ngā raruraru pērā tonu i te mahi porotehe o wētahi o ngā kaimahi o te Kāwana. E pai ana, e tae atu tātou i te rangi nei hei whakatikatika i tērā taumaha. Nō reira, koutou mō tō kaha ki te tae ki konei e Mākino, e mihi kau ana, tēnā koutou. E tika atu i te mihi atu ki ngā tūpakeke, te koroua Te Ariki, e mihi kau ana. Mai rā anō tōna kōrero i tū mai ngā wāhi o ngā marae, e kaha ana te koroua ki te kōrero atu mō te āhua ō tōna iwi. Nō reira, i a koutou katoa tēnā koutou.   

[It is appropriate as I rise that I acknowledge you all in your efforts to come here to this place, the Beehive. I salute your efforts. I also pay a tribute to the elders and those who are no longer with us. I mourn them. I also acknowledge those living by the lakes back at your homelands, greetings. We know this settlement has been a long journey. You have heard the nature of the fighting, the theft by Government, problems like those relating to protest actions by some Government workers. We have reached this day to remedy that hardship, and that is great. Therefore, I commend your efforts to get here, Mākino, well done. It is right that I acknowledge the elders, in particular Te Ariki. I commend you. From the outset, he has stood up on marae and vigorously debated the plight of his people. So I commend you all.]

It is certainly an honour to be part of this great end today. It would never meet the heights of what it should be. But certainly I want to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, for his effort; past colleagues Michael Cullen, Mahara Okeroa, and Mita Ririnui; and Minister Turia. We join with them in bringing what has been a long journey—at times unnecessarily long—to fruition. It is important to congratulate and thank Āwhi Awhimate, like I said, the koroua Te Ariki Mōrehu, Morris Meha, Neville Nēpia, the Ngāti Mākino Heritage Trust, and—as usual in naming people, you are leaving people out—all of those other people involved. At times it is a risky thing to name people, because you forget some auntie or uncle. But I certainly want to mention kuia like Te Hīrata Sykes and those ones who have been there from the beginning to now, and recognise that they have played a part in it and that they have shown the way forward. So kia ora koutou. To the officials, thanks again. At times it is an unthankful job, but certainly they fared well in this one.

The record will tell us that the land deeds and practices of the agents of the Crown were certainly unwise, unjust, and unfair. We can wax lyrical about how bad they were, but in this case they were terrible, and the fact that they removed rights and removed property is something that the Ministers, past and present, have tried to put forward. The Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill recognises, through an apology to Ngāti Mākino, those historical acts, including the battle of Kaukauroa. That was huge land confiscation, and it was unfair. Of course, among Mākino at the time there were differences between those who supported the Kīngitanga and those who stood neutral, and in their own sense they chose to do their part, but certainly the British and the Crown did not care where the parties were, and they did what they did.

The transfer of the eight sites of significance to the Ngāti Mākino Heritage Trust is critical, as is the whenua rāhui classification of over 256 hectares of the Lake Rotomā Scenic Reserve, which provides for the Crown to acknowledge Ngāti Mākino values in relation to the area. I think, taking on from earlier speakers, it is intrinsic in the sense of their cultural inheritance and their whakapapa that those values can never be put asunder by any deed or charter of the Crown. That can be recognised, no differently than for the different parishes in this country that tend to serve one person, and the other Pākehā organisations that seem to be differing in their views, but certainly get to a collective point at a time of moving against Māori.

That is what Ngāti Mākino need to be recognised for. They have more than pulled themselves together, as I heard one person try to say the other week. There has never ever been a problem about them being who they were; it is about the perception of those people who have worked with them. This is an iwi who have stood the test of time, and who have decided to go to where they have gone to. In the sense of the cause, and the neighbours and whanaunga, it is interesting the way that they started off. There was a deal approached to getting towards where they have got to today, but they had different time lines and separate journeys, and they chose to do that.

We can cite the quantum, as Minister Turia has spoken about—the money—and at the end of the day it is there and they will manage it well. They are pretty good at that. But in relation to the classifications and the jurisdiction that the Department of Conservation has, Minister Finlayson, I see that it has the authority again to allow easements or whatever else. Very interesting, Minister—here we go again. So I want to say again, Minister, with regard to all these ministry thankyous and activities that you have promised that they will enact with iwi, you must keep your finger on it. You know, there is a bit of a history developing of these tari—these ministries—saying: “We’re going to do this. We wrote it in the charter. Here we go.” So again I respectfully suggest, Minister, that you keep an eye on it. If you are too busy, you get Minister Turia or somebody else—or me—to watch them, and I tell you, I will keep an eye on them.

Seriously, it is something that our people need. It is something that they need. Let us not just be hodgepodge, as it was in 1863 and 1853, and let it just drift by. So again, Minister, I will not ask you to increase the quantum this time, but I will ask you to make sure they do the job. That is really important. I have been around long enough to hear people say: “Yep, we’re going to do this.”, and then they are talk about a green bike and they end up with a broken-down horse. So in relation to that, I want to commend the Minister for getting through with this thing.

The purchase of the balance of the Rotoehu West Forest licence land will provide for the transfer of approximately $9.9 million in accumulated rentals to the Ngāti Mākino Heritage Trust. That is really great, and it is great that hopefully, as the Deputy Speaker understands, the interest will be going with the money. Kia ora, Minister. You can look up now.

But look, those old people need to be really commended for this effort—and all of them who have turned up here today. Some of the faces are very familiar. They have been along the battered highway of reproach to try to ensure that they get this settlement out of the way, and that they can create a better lot for their people.

I want to commend the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tau Henare, for his efforts. I feel sorry for him, because he has gone back to smoking. But I want to mihi to him because he really puts the effort in and makes sure we toe the line to get this stuff through. I want to mihi to the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. We are overworked, but, like you said, being on the Māori Affairs Committee is like being in the All Blacks. It is not like the Warriors. So I want to recognise the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and all the other members there who have helped us to get to here. That he has got a bit of publicity today is another issue, because he is a great bloke, and I will not get into his point of difference with who he has been disagreeing with. But I know he agrees today about how great this settlement is for the Mākino people.

Nō reira, tērā anō te whakaaro i roto i a au. I a koutou e kaha ana i te whakatū mana tō whakapapa, e mihi kau ana. Ahakoa ngā piki, ngā heke e pai ana te ora, te whana ākuni e puta ana mō te pai o te rangatahi. Nō reira, i a koutou katoa, ngā rangatira, ngā koroua, kuia, te rangatahi pea o Ngāti Mākino, e mihi kau ana. Kia pai te hoki ki te kāinga, ki te wāhi pai e mōhio atu koutou. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[So that is my view. I really applaud your efforts to give your genealogy status. Despite the ups and downs, benefits and funding for the young people will emerge eventually. Therefore I commend you all the leaders, the old and young ones perhaps of Ngāti Mākino, congratulations. A safe return home to the refuge that you know is good. Greetings to you all.]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Ko Te Arawa te waka, ko Matawhaorua te maunga, ko Waitahanui te awa, ko Ōtamarākau te marae, ko Ngāti Mākino te iwi, rau rangatira mā, nau mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki tēnei rā nui, tino whakaharahara mō koutou, mō te motu. Nā koutou te kaha, nā koutou te manawanui, kua tata te mahi. Kei te mihi atu ki te hunga kua mene atu ki te pō, haere ngā mate, tēnā tātou.

[Te Arawa is the canoe, Matawhaorua is the mountain, Waitahanui is the river, Ōtamarākau is the marae, and Ngāti Makino is the tribe; welcome leaders of a hundredfold, welcome. Welcome to this great and wonderful day for you and for the nation. You have been strong and stout of heart. It is nearly done. I pay a tribute to those who have assembled in the void, farewell the dead, and acknowledgments to us.]

I am really pleased, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, to speak in this third reading debate, and I reflect on those words: “Haere mai ki tēnei rā nui, tino whakaharahara mō koutou, mō te motu.” This is a day of significance and importance for the iwi and for the country. Those sentiments need to be emphasised time and time again, because I know what is going to happen at the end of the day. I will have received some emails, as other members will have received, and they will fall into two distinct categories—two groups of people, both of whom are ignorant, mean-spirited, and wrong.

On the one hand there will be those who just do not like settlements. They say a people should just get on with it and not dwell on the past. I am sure Mr Horomia will get a few of these as well.

Well, in our own way, over many years, both major parties, in particular—and through them the country—have developed a method of historical dispute resolution that is the best in the world. It has been a bipartisan effort. In 1975 it was the late Mat Rata who set up the Waitangi Tribunal, when Bill Rowling was Prime Minister. In 1984 the jurisdiction was extended so that the tribunal could inquire into grievances like this one, which go back many, many years.

In 1990 it was Jim Bolger and Doug Graham who said that all these reports were starting to pile up and something needed to be done about them. So in 1995 there was the first settlement with the late Bob Māhuta and Waikato-Tainui, and in 2008, when this Government came in, it committed itself to an aspirational goal—not a deadline, because deadlines do not work, but an aspirational goal—of just and durable settlements by 2014. When people say: “2014—why?”, well, you have only got to look at the example of Ngāti Mākino. Their claim was lodged in 1995, and yet the deed of settlement was signed by us at Ōtamarākau Marae on that beautiful day, 2 April 2011. So there is much to be done if we are to reach a stage where there are just and durable settlements for all iwi who are willing and able to settle.

Then there are those in the second category, to which I referred, who dismiss what is going on today as mere deals. These people have never been involved in negotiations, they have not even read the history, but they still purport to know it all.

Well, I particularly want to focus on Ngāti Mākino today, but, very briefly, one can say to look at the bills we are debating today, and I thank the House for facilitating that. All of them are truly unique, in the real sense of that word. All reflect the special history of what has happened. We have just had the Maraeroa claims. That was not an iwi settlement, but it was a bloc claim brought by various people from a number of iwi. We are now dealing with the Ngāti Mākino claim about the sufferings that occurred during the strife in the Bay of Plenty after the war between the Crown and Kīngitanga spilled over into the Bay of Plenty in around 1863. This afternoon we will be looking at the Ngāti Rongowhakaata claim, and particularly the unique aspect of that is what happened to Te Hau ki Tūranga when it was basically stolen and put in a museum, and it is now going back to where it should be. Then there is the Ngai Tāmanuhiri claim—again, suffering in Tairāwhiti, but it has its own distinct history.

I think a hugely significant part of the legislation that is crafted as a result of the combined efforts of the Crown and iwi is the preamble, the history, and the acknowledgments by the Crown. Those acknowledgments are not made lightly. They are made as a result of a very detailed analysis of the history, and a recognition in 2012 that what happened in the 19th century in this part of the world was not good and that it needs to be acknowledged by the Crown. Those who are critical of Treaty settlements for one reason or another should read the preamble and should read the acknowledgments, because the history matters. I often think that so often people focus on the commercial redress, but the historical redress is an important—a very important—pillar of a settlement.

So in the deed of settlement, and again in this bill, the Crown acknowledges breaches of the Treaty, and the impact on Ngāti Mākino of those breaches. Mrs Turia and Mr Horomia have referred to those breaches, but it needs to be emphasised time and time again that by 1900, Ngāti Mākino, as the preamble says, were virtually landless, and yet in the 20th century the Crown compulsorily acquired further land for public works and to establish scenic reserves. As Mrs Turia repeated on a number of occasions, by 1992, only 0.6 percent of the combined area of the three major blocks in which Ngāti Mākino had interests remained in the hands of the iwi.

When those acknowledgments are given by the Crown they are genuine, and they need to be reflected on by all New Zealanders, because the Crown, through its Ministers and Government departments, did dishonour the Treaty, and demeaned Ngāti Mākino in the process. As both speakers have said, now, with the passage of this bill and the Royal assent, hopefully later today or tomorrow, it falls time for these grievances to be lifted. It is the real desire of the Crown to build a foundation of trust and commitment so that both parties can work together to revitalise te rangatiratanga o Ngāti Mākino.

Mr Horomia is absolutely right—and it was a point I referred to during the earlier debate—that it is all very well for the Crown to give its undertakings, and to send off the letters to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and various other people, but the proof of the pudding, as the old saying goes, is in the eating. Whether or not the Crown does seek to revitalise with Ngāti Mākino te rangatiratanga o Ngāti Mākino will depend on how the Crown deals and works with the iwi in the years to come, and whether or not the fine words that are spelt out in the bill are honoured, in fact, through practical action. That is why Mr Horomia and I are singing from the same song sheet when we say that it behoves the Crown, regardless of administration—administrations come and go, but the obligation on the Crown is ongoing—to make sure that what is agreed in the deed of settlement and given effect to in the legislation is honoured in the years to come.

I want to acknowledge all the people who have come to Parliament today. I know that for some it has been a very, very long bus ride, and then this afternoon it will repeat itself. I thank you for your work over all those years. It is all very well for Ministers and officials, as we are the ones, I suppose, who do it in work time. So often, people who are acting for their iwi do it in their own time, at some considerable financial cost, and I sincerely hope that in the years to come your efforts will be recognised and realised. As I said, the Crown’s work is not over; it is just the beginning. I commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā whānau o Ngāti Mākino, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is my privilege as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee to stand and to kōrero in this, the third reading of the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill. I actually want to start with the Ngāti Mākino website, which I have just pulled up. I wanted just to say that preserving Mākinotanga is one of the primary objectives of your Ngāti Mākino Heritage Trust. It is great to see that you are already in the process of moving on with your settlements. I wanted to just read some of the objectives for you in terms of the settlement, which are about restoring Ngāti Mākino ownership and control over your ancestral lands, resources, and taonga tuku iho; to establish an economic base for the iwi of Ngāti Mākino; to promote the education, health, employment, and commercial opportunities for the people of Ngāti Mākino; and to promote and protect the tikanga, kawa, culture, and Te Reo of Ngāti Mākino.

All of those things, we acknowledge today, have been compromised because of the Crown’s historical acts. Through the process of colonisation, your identity has been stripped away from you, like a lot of hapū and iwi in Aotearoa. Really, this process, for us, is our truth and reconciliation process. So today is a very special day, and I am incredibly privileged to be part of the process. We have a role here in Parliament. This third reading, once this bill is passed, will enable you to move on. I want to acknowledge all of the tūpuna—and I see some of our tūpuna here in our photos—who have fought for many years to get to where we are today, and I acknowledge the journey that you have all taken to be here today.

I think it is really important, when we have these Treaty settlement bills in the House, that we actually outline what the grievance is, because this is a record in the Hansard, a record in our history, about what happened to Ngāti Mākino. Ngāti Mākino had lands taken from them in 1865, because they were deemed to be rebels. What was their rebellion? It was probably living their lives as Ngāti Mākino. That was your rebellion. So the Crown confiscated lands. They gave them back to you, and then they took them off you, because the people that they gave them back to were deemed to be rebels. I think it is appalling when we consider the fact you are getting only 0.6 percent of the original lands that Ngāti Mākino had. I think the acknowledgment of that fact has to be one of generosity; that we, as a people of Aotearoa, have to say to Ngāti Mākino: “Thank you.” It is through your generosity that we can move on as a country. Where I think this Treaty settlement process fits in New Zealand’s history is actually about us being able to move on, and to enable you to have some resources where you can do all the things that you want to do.

So the process today, and our standing up here today, is all about trying to get the resources in your hand. What I do want to note is that the New Zealand Conservation Authority will have to give regard to Ngāti Mākino’s values and protection principles in relation to the 256 hectares of Lake Rotomā Scenic Reserve. I hope in that process it will be about Ngāti Mākino naming the places that are of significance to Ngāti Mākino. Some of the challenges, and ongoing challenges in the future, will be to make sure that this clause that is in the bill actually enables you to own the lands and all the areas that you have mana whenua over. So they are going to be some of the challenges in the future, and we will be keeping an eye on them. Obviously, we are here, because if you do have problems in the future, you come back to my boss, Parekura Horomia, and we will make sure that your rights and interests are safeguarded. This Treaty settlement process is about empowering you—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

LOUISA WALL: —“you” as in Ngāti Mākino; I apologise, Mr Speaker. It is about making sure that Ngāti Mākino whānau have the tools that they need to make the relationship actually real, and that is the challenge when we look at these Treaty settlement bills.

What I do want to highlight and talk about is the whole process of redress. I know that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said this is not about deals; this is a settlement. But what it is also about is an ethic of generosity, again, by our hapū and iwi, who are prepared to settle and move on, in spite of the fact that you are getting only a fraction of your lands back. I think that as a country we need to recognise and celebrate that generosity, because it is only through your acts as Ngāti Mākino that we can move on as a nation. We can look forward to a place in our history where the relationship between Māori and the Crown is not about grievance, it is not about what has happened historically; it is actually about focusing on the future and the positive contribution that Ngāti Mākino and other whānau, hapū, and iwi in Aotearoa can make to building the country that we want.

I also want to highlight that this is actually about the status of hapū and iwi—that hapū and iwi are the first sovereigns of Aotearoa. You have a very special place in New Zealand’s history, but you have a very special place in terms of opportunities to be part of decision making. So processes like resource management processes, led either by the Environment Court or by our councils, should have hapū and iwi sitting round that decision-making table because of the significance of our whenua, our awa—the moana. It is through those types of relationships in the future that we will be interested in making sure that our iwi, like Ngāti Mākino, continue to have a role.

I want to thank the Hon Tau Henare and also my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee. It is the one area where we have consensus. It is the one area where I think we are always willing to go out to our whānau to listen to the stories. Some of the stories make you weep, but they are what is Aotearoa. The histories of Ngāti Mākino and other hapū and iwi need to be taught. Some of the discussions we have been having are how we can translate some of these Waitangi Tribunal reports, these bills, the deeds of settlement into tangible knowledge that our kids should learn about. When I say “our kids”, I am talking about all of our children through the curriculum of some of our high schools, for example. How can we embed this history, this New Zealand history, into the framework of our education system? Some of those challenges in the future, I am looking forward to the Māori Affairs Committee being a champion of.

I just want to again acknowledge the whānau who are here today. I am celebrating with you. We celebrate the fact that we have come to a point in your history where we can say sorry. We can give you back some of what was yours, but we can also say that we will be here in the future to make sure that what is contained in the settlement process actually enables you to have that Ngāti Mākinotanga. Kia ora.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E te Upoko o tō tātou Piringa, me ngā mema e huihui mai, tēnā koutou katoa. Huri atu ki te whakanui i te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to you, the head of House, and to the members assembled here, greetings to you all. I turn to acknowledge Māori Language Week, greetings to you all.]

Tēnā koutou katoa, Ngāti Mākino, who are present in the gallery today. Kia ora. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Greens and our support for the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge my colleague Denise Roche, who made our second reading speech on this bill. It was a very articulate description that she set out in that speech of the history of the confiscation of the wars and of the loss to Ngāti Mākino over many years. She outlined a great deal of the history: the land confiscation from 1866 and the loss of 80,000-odd hectares of land by the 1990s. At a very early stage, most of the land was taken. Some 100 years later very, very little of that land was left.

I will take only a short call today, because I know that there is a great deal of celebration still to go for this legislation. I want to echo the words of both Denise Roche in her second reading speech and Louisa Wall today in her kōrero just earlier, about the generosity of iwi and hapū who accept these settlements and the generosity today of Ngāti Mākino in their acceptance of this settlement. It is 20 years in the making. That is a lifetime for many, and there were many lives lost during that process.

The Greens have always opposed the Treaty settlement process. We have always been prepared to stand up in this House and talk about the failures of the process, the weaknesses of the process, and what that means for iwi and hapū who are trying their best to engage with it. We have a huge amount of respect for those who are prepared to engage with it, because it is so difficult. It is unfair and it is ill-conceived, in our view. The Crown sets the terms, the Crown makes the rules, and the Crown creates the delays that lead to many, many years between a claim being made and a settlement being finalised. In our view, a durable and just settlement between two sovereign parties requires an equitable engagement between those parties. That does not happen in this Treaty settlement process. An equitable engagement between sovereign parties means that the parties agree together on the process that they undertake and that the parties agree to negotiate terms with an open mind. We know from settlement after settlement after settlement that that is not the case in Treaty settlements. The Crown comes to the table with a deal, and it is very rare for the terms of that deal to be significantly changed in the negotiations. It is not treated with an open mind, with a view to the needs of the other sovereign party in this engagement.

We also know that the resolution of settlements and Treaty settlements often lead to further injustices, and that should not be part of the process either. That is a weakness of the Treaty settlement process. We do not apologise for making that explicit in this House when we discuss settlements. Someone needs to be clear and straight about that. If we are to improve the process and to make sure we move towards durable settlements and just settlements where there is equitable engagement, we must be prepared to debate the weaknesses and the failings. But that also does mean, as has been said by Louisa and Denise—and, no doubt, others—that we recognise the generosity of iwi who are prepared to engage at all, and the hard, hard work and the money and the time that it takes for them to do that. They are prepared to put themselves on the line in order to get some progress, not only for themselves and for their whānau, their kids, and their mokos but also, actually, for the rest of the country as well.

I think one of the big changes that could be made to the settlement process that is a responsibility of the Crown—not of the iwi involved—is that their stories are made much more explicit, as has been discussed, to the rest of the New Zealand population. They just do not know about the history. It is a block to genuine progress for iwi and Crown relationships, and for our community relationships, that New Zealanders do not know the full history: the pain, the hurt, the damage, the loss, and the deaths that arose out of the colonisation process, which has now led to the need for the Treaty settlement process.

I am, I have to say, disappointed with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations’ rather personal attacks today. I think that those attacks belittle him, given that I understand he is committed to this process. But those attacks do belittle him, and I am disappointed by that. I agree with the Minister that the Crown must now build a relationship with Ngāti Mākino based on trust and commitment. I agree with him that it will be the actions of the Crown, or the actions of the Government more explicitly, that will count in the building of that relationship with Ngāti Mākino. But thus far we hear pretty words, and we do not see the actions that would give those words genuine dignity or that relationship genuine dignity. We look forward to seeing how those words will be put into action.

I want finally to pay my respects to all of those of Ngāti Mākino who have been involved in any way in the settlement process who have passed on, and our deep sorrow that the delays have meant that that has happened and those who worked for the settlement in the past have not been able to see it come to fruition today. I want to congratulate all of those who have worked and continue to work not only on the settlement but also on the best means to use the resources that have been returned, however meagre, for the benefit of their whānau, hapū, and iwi. It is no small feat to try to use these small resources to resolve more than 100 years of pain, loss, and degradation. Even that alone—that that attempt is being made and that the skills are there to do that work—is just extraordinary. The Māori community is extraordinary. Ngāti Mākino is extraordinary. I want to pay them homage for all the work that they have done. Kia ora koutou.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi ki a koutou e aku rangatira, e aku tuākana, e aku tēina rānei, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou katoa i haere mai nei i tēnei rā whakahirahira, rā nunui mō tēnei pire, nō reira, anō te hari, anō te aroha ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Firstly, I acknowledge you, my leaders, elder or junior siblings: greetings, and salutations to you. I acknowledge you all who came here on this wonderful and truly great day for this bill. So joy and regards once again to you all. Acknowledgments and congratulations to you collectively, and to us all.]

You know when you go to a party, eh? When you go to a party, everybody is happy. It might be the celebration of Parekura’s 70th; it may be to congratulate the whānau on the birth of a new child. But there is always one person, you know? There is always one person who wants to throw a spanner in the works, who wants to say, not nasty things, but things that are not particularly right for the occasion. And I must admit I am sometimes like that myself.

Hon Members: No!

Hon TAU HENARE: Only sometimes—only sometimes. But this is a wonderful day. If we have a look at the whole day, it is not only about our work as parliamentarians progressing things to their final stage. Also, if you look at the big picture, we have moved from around the Taihape area over to the Eastern Bay of Plenty, and maybe later on this afternoon we will get down to the East Coast.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Hooray!

Hon TAU HENARE: What was that? My words to the hau kāinga, the home people, are this: beware of companies bearing gifts and great ideas to grow your pūtea. Please beware because, as we all know, if you fall over, everybody else in the nation says “See, told you they couldn’t look after it.” So it is a big pressure on the home folk. I have no doubt whatsoever that the home folk can look after the bank account and look after the growing of Ngāti Mākino as only Ngāti Mākino can. Ngāpuhi cannot tell you what to do—they would never try that anyway! Parliament cannot tell you what to do. It is in your hands, and, as my colleague and whanaunga Shane Jones said last week in the debate around Treaty settlements, it is now upon you—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon TAU HENARE: Yeah, yeah, I know. I seek leave to use the word “you” in my speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, the member is perfectly entitled to do that. What I would say is that the word “you” is generally at the Speaker’s discretion, and sometimes as a Speaker, when we think it is pointing incorrectly to the Speaker, we will raise the issue with the member and call “Order!”. But the member is perfectly entitled to seek leave of the House. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Hon TAU HENARE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Righto, you guys. I will not abuse my leave and will use the word “you” only when I refer to you.

It is a heavy load looking at the history of each Treaty settlement, and this is nothing out of the extraordinary, because it has happened to us all. We fight for 150-odd years to have some closure, and then when we get closure we have this huge other burden, and that is the pressure on you of our peers, of our whānau members, of other iwi, and of the nation as well. So I wish you well, and please do not hesitate to seek out those whom you trust. Seek out those who have skills from within. There are lots of young people out there today who are doing marvellously well—marvellously well—and we should be proud of the fact that there are young people in universities, are young people out there working in businesses, and are young people out there who have the nous and the skills to assist the home people. I say “the home people” with all humility, because that is where Ngāti Mākino is. It is at home that they are Ngāti Mākino. Although there are other people out there who are Ngāti Mākino of Ngāti Mākino descent, it is the home people who keep the fires burning. It is the home people whom we go to when we are on our travels. At this very point in time—right now—my mother-in-law’s sister is travelling on her last journey, most probably through the Eastern Bay of Plenty. So it is for the home people, the hau kāinga, to look after all of that whakapapa, all of what we expect when we look inside ourselves and discover that we are Māori, that we have whakapapa here, there, and everywhere.

Last week I spoke on the particular story of New Zealand. Like I said on the Maraeroa A and B Blocks legislation, for iwi, today is ending one chapter and tomorrow they will turn a page and it is a new chapter. It will be full of great expectations, the new chapter, and I want to give my salute to Ngāti Mākino and say that it will be OK. It will be great fun. The next part of the journey is going to be even more exciting than the last part of the journey.

I want to refer now to what my good friend and colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia said about the Māori Affairs Committee—and also my colleague Louise Upston mentioned it as well—because I think it is very important to understand how we work in the Māori Affairs Committee. Yes, we have our arguments just like at home. My arguments are mainly with my own colleagues. This is a select committee that prides itself on being able to see things from both sides, and prides itself on trying to work together, because, at the end of the day, most of our work is not concerned with the legalese, dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s; it is concerned about the betterment of Māori, and when you have that as a kaupapa, you tend to work closer and work in a more collaborative way.

Yes, I have started smoking again. Mr Horomia outed me this morning. But here is something to ponder. Here is something to ponder while we are all so aghast at somebody smoking these days. Here is something to ponder: 150 or 180 years ago, Pākehās from the other side of the world brought us tobacco and said “Here, have a smoke.”, and 180 years later they now tell us “You should give up.” I know I am making a joke. I know I am taking the proverbial out of it, but I have just got to say—and I use this as an opportunity—that there is a line in the sand. We all know that it is harmful. We all know that—now we do, and thanks to those people who have put that kōrero out there—but there is a line in the sand, and when you step over it you start to be a nagger, you start to be a zealot, and you start to be a fascist. Quite frankly, I have had enough of those people. I will not take it any more. When I go outside for a smoke I am proud of who I am. You know, the system, society, might say “Oh, look at that man.” I look in the mirror and say “Jeez, what a handsome man.” I also look at myself and think that Māori are not just, as one of my colleagues said, some sort of race of people; we actually are this land—we are this land. You cannot find us anywhere else in the world, except maybe Perth. Nō reira, koutou mā taku hoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I am seriously concerned that nicotine really is a hallucinogenic! I find myself agreeing with many of the sensible comments that the Hon Tau Henare made, but I would add that he was actually very kind in the beginning, because I am, quite frankly, fed up with parliamentarians who come in here and sow poison. They lace it with particles of reason, but they sow the seeds of discontent, and they have not been on the journey that Ngāti Mākino has been on.

Blind Freddie knows that nothing can truly restore what has been taken; nothing can restore that. We all know that—all of us here in New Zealand. Let nobody watching this debate leave here today thinking that the negotiators have not done the utmost, the very best that they can do, and got the best they can for Ngāti Mākino—or any tribe in New Zealand, for that matter. I look forward to when the Hon Chris Finlayson comes back into the House, and I look forward to what he has to say about the Greens’ continued speeches.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill. Only two of the original claimants are still with us: Te Ariki Mōrehu and Te Hīrata Sykes. It was my great privilege to meet with Te Hīrata this morning at Tauranga Airport, and I would like to welcome her here in the gallery. Could we have a round of applause for Te Hīrata? [Applause] Te Ariki and Te Hīrata have been the backbone of this claim. This settlement and, most important, the apology create a new dawn for the people of Ngāti Mākino.

Their claim, as Minister Finlayson said, is distinctly unique, with a very special history, but it is also similar to many claims in New Zealand, in the atrocities that have happened to Māori all over the land. Yes, land was confiscated by the Crown, but then the Crown came again in the form of Māori land agents, who amalgamated Māori farmers’ lands. Imagine that: one day, there you are, king of your castle, at home, and another Māori comes along and says: “Guess what! You don’t own this any more. You are a part-owner of a bigger block of land.” But they could not leverage off it financially, and in the end they had hundreds of owners of a block of land. That was the start of many Māori families disintegrating, and of Māori having to watch European farmers being able to rent Māori land at peppercorn rates and build empires while Māori slowly but surely were increasingly forced off their land, losing contact, mana, wairua, and identity. This apology by the Crown restores that mana to the people of Ngāti Mākino, and I would just like to mention and thank all of those people who have worked so hard in this process. Kia ora.

I would also like to mention Ōtamarākau School, which has to be one of the most beautiful primary schools in the world. The parents, teachers, and locals all guard it zealously. They were most concerned when they thought that Ngāti Mākino was going to take that school, and it is my pleasure to put their minds at ease. Ngāti Mākino have given their reassurance that it will be business as usual at Ōtamarākau School, and they do the business of learning and caring for our most precious taonga, our children, very, very well. To those people who are watching on Parliament TV and those people who are live streaming from the other side of the world, you will never find a better fishing competition than the Ōtamarākau School fishing competition at Matatā. I will be there next year, and I look forward to seeing many of those of you here in the gallery today; I will see you there as well.

I just want to also reiterate the comments of the Hon Parekura Horomia and Tau Henare that this is—pardon me, Mr Speaker—your settlement. This is yours to do with as you wish, to be your future so that you can self-determine where Ngāti Mākino goes from here. Good luck, safe journey, kia ora.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Rau rangatira mā tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi rangatira o Ngāti Mākino. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnei Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, arohatia Te Reo.

[Thank you, and greetings to you, the House. I acknowledge you, the many leaders in respect of the matter of the day. Salutations to the chiefly tribes of Ngāti Mākino. Greetings and acknowledgments to you all. This is Māori Language Week. Cherish the Language.]

I am very proud to speak in this third reading of the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill, particularly as it is Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I want to echo the words of my parliamentary colleagues who have spoken in the House today about the relationship between iwi and the Crown, and how it has strengthened with these final settlements, and the fact that we move to a better place each time we conclude a third reading in this House. It is a significant moment and it is fantastic to see so many represented here today from Ngāti Mākino to celebrate it with us. I am sure that when you return home you will share the memories of this day with your whānau, and I encourage you to do that, to make sure that the story of today is etched in your history of the days that got us to this point.

One of the things that we speak about when we talk about Treaty settlements is the economic benefits that are unlocked as a result. But the benefits are far more than unlocking economic potential. One of the things that I have been privileged to experience as part of the Māori Affairs Committee is to look at a number of the issues that the select committee is dealing with. Too often we are talking about people, but on the negative side. Yesterday in our meetings there was significant conversation about deficit. Well, I think the settlements unlock economic potential, but, more important, it unlocks the potential of our people. I deliberately say “our”—yours, ours, the people of Aotearoa. I want to speak a little bit more about that further in this speech.

We talk a lot about land, but, I think, more important, it is also the cultural and spiritual and historical significance of these settlements. I talked in my last speech on the Maraeroa settlement legislation about some of the economic benefits and the tourism opportunities in the area. But I want to move on to a couple of the areas that I see the settlements, such as the Ngāti Mākino settlement, provide. If I reflect, it was the deed of settlement that was signed in April last year that set out the commercial redress, and, unfortunately, sometimes what we focus on is the commercial redress—$11.9 million—and the return of culturally significant sites.

I think one of the things that we do not talk about enough, though, and I wanted to talk about it today, is Te Reo, because I think that the cultural benefits of the settlements not only benefit Ngāti Mākino but also benefit us as a country. I want to take an opportunity to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell. He is the champion of Te Reo in this House, in this Whare. Just this week, he has reminded us that our pronunciation could and should be better. But I want to applaud the fact that there are many members of this House who have spoken for the first time in Te Reo this week. They have not done it quietly; they have done it publicly. I commended my colleagues on Facebook. I was rather disturbed to get some criticism that asked why it is only during this week—Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori—that we do that. I said: “Well, actually, I don’t think there’s any other better opportunity to stand in the House, to be courageous in saying words that you may never have uttered before, to run the risk of being criticised for getting it wrong, but trying it anyway.”

My personal belief is the more that we use the language—your language and ours—then the more comfortable we are with it, and the more it will become woven into our language in Aotearoa. I think that is the thing that is so vital in terms of these settlements. It is not just about land, and it is not about a cheque; it is about the fact that our cultures are woven more deeply than they ever have been before.

That is why I am immensely proud to be part of this Government and the fact that we are progressing so many settlements. We operate with the cooperation of the House, so I pay tribute to my parliamentary colleagues for allowing us—us collectively—to do that. All of us benefit, and we benefit in our language, we benefit in the wider culture, and we benefit in what we are able to share.

So I do not want to talk about deficits today. I want to talk about profits, I want to talk about wealth, and I want to talk about richness—the richness that the partnership between iwi and the Crown provides for all of us. So when you leave here—when all of us leave here—I urge each and every one of you to share the story of today, to share the story of what is possible each and every time an apology is made and accepted, and that instead of having media headlines about where we disagree, let us make media headlines about where we agree, so that we can weave our futures more closely together, you can share that with your children, I can share it with mine, and together Aotearoa will be stronger. Nō reira.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, tēnā koutou. Tēnei e tāpiri atu āku mihi ki a koutou Ngāti Mākino, Te Arawa waka i tau mai nei ki roto i tēnei Whare, tō koutou Whare, ki te whakarongo ki ēnei o ngā kōrero. Ki a tātou katoa, ka nui te mihi. Tēnei, e tika ana me mihi atu ki ngā tini mate i kawea mai nei e koutou i runga i ōu koutou pokohiwi, tae atu ki ngā whakaahua e iri nei i ngā tara o tēnei Whare mō tēnei wā poto. Nā rātou i kawea ngā toimahatanga e pā ana ki ngā tino hiahia kei waenganui i a koutou, nō reira, ka mihi atu rā ki a rātou, heke iho mai ki a tātou katoa. Ko ā mātou nei wāhanga, he paku whakaaro e pā ana ki te nuinga o ā koutou nei mahi, nō reira, i raro i tērā ka tū ki te kōrero ki tēnei kaupapa.

[Thank you, and greetings to you, collectively. I add my salutations to you, Ngāti Makino, Te Arawa canoe, who have arrived here in this House—indeed, your House—to listen to these addresses. To you all, I acknowledge you greatly. It is only right that I pay a tribute to the multitude who have passed away whom you bring here upon your shoulders, including the photographs of those who have died, too, which hang on the walls of this House for this brief moment. They bore the full might of the burdens in terms of what you really wanted amongst you, so I pay a tribute to them, right down to us all. Our part is to give some consideration, small as it might seem, to much of what you have done, and on that basis I rise to address this matter.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a small contribution to this particular settlement. As I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee, I did draw on the debate in the House this morning. I want to perhaps highlight a couple of things that are synonymous with most Treaty settlements. Yes, it is correct that legislation can take away land. Yes, it is correct that battles can take away the lives of people, but, no, it is not correct that mana can be restored by legislation. I think that is a really important point, because for Ngāti Mākino I am absolutely assured that despite the adversity of history, despite what may have happened to their people in times gone past to this present day, their mana remains intact. It is confirmed, and only strengthened by, the trail in which their tūpuna fought to seek resolution of their claims, that we humbly stand here to try to rectify some small part of that.

So that is one aspect. The other aspect that I want to draw on is comments made by the Minister. He made a very wise comment in saying that really, once Treaty settlements are achieved, the most important part is the implementation component. In speaking to members through this House of Parliament, I too agree that it is not so much the fiscal quantum of any of the settlements that come before the House, because from a fiscal point of view it will never ever be enough to reconcile historical injustices. But if you look at the entirety of what people have tried to seek through the settlement package, then we see some glimmers of opportunity, not only in reconciliation but also in restoration for future opportunities.

So with that in mind, Minister, I particularly point to the notes that you drew our attention to, which is the components of the cultural redress. There was limited debate in the second reading of this legislation in the House because most members agreed that the bill was fine in its entirety. But I really want to, for the purposes of the Hansard and maybe if people are looking back to our debates as parliamentarians, give light to some of the aspects of the legislation. I want to point to Part 2 and the cultural redress.

First of all, there are the amendments regarding protocols. It is of interest to me that Ngāti Mākino were quite specific about having some defined protocols in relation to taonga tūturu and in relation to the Crown minerals process. What drew my attention to this was a number of things—firstly, clause 18. I wanted to make the comment that although it is unclear in the way that the legislation is written now, a protocol can be cancelled at the discretion of the Minister. What might the specific aspects of those considerations be? If it is the intention of Ngāti Mākino to ensure that these protocols will lock in their opportunity to have a say on what happens in, say, the designation of spatial exploration of minerals, then it must be one of the measures by which a future Government would be held to account to ensure the implementation intent can be achieved.

I would think that if a future Minister overseeing their responsibilities as they apply to Ngāti Mākino thinks that they can just cancel the protocol, even after having consultation but without giving regard to the intent and spirit of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Mākino, then they have surely failed the test of the expectation of this legislation.

The other point that I want to raise is that although I am sure that the Crown minerals protocol contained in this legislation does not go nearly far enough, it is definitely a flag in the ground, because in the future if technological advances and mining extraction methods improve and are non-invasive and less intrusive on the environment, then one might expect that Ngāti Mākino is putting a stake in the ground to say “Well, hang on, for anything that happens in our area, not only do we want to be consulted, but also we potentially may have an interest that is currently not expressed.” This particular bill is silent on all those fronts, maybe for good reason, but I want to put on the record that those are some of the future opportunities of successful implementation of Ngāti Mākino that can be achieved; these will be, I think, some of the future tests that a future Government will be held to account on.

The other point—and I said I was not going to take a long call—was on the issue of the letters of introduction in two spaces; firstly, with the local authorities and, secondly, with the Minister of Housing. There are two important points I want to make here. It is one thing opening the door; it is another thing being able to get people in the door, sitting down, and discussing the real issues of the day. It would be a very real concern to me if, for example, Government policy seeks to move the four well-beings within local government legislation and thereby does not allow Ngāti Mākino to express their aspirations for their areas, their rohe, in a holistic way. The four well-beings within local government legislation provide for that.

On the issue of housing, again, it is one thing opening a door; it is another thing ushering them in to be able to sit at the table and talk about the real issues. The provision of social housing becomes a very real issue when we are talking about housing for Māori whanau in whichever rohe; but, more important, how do we unlock the opportunities, the economic opportunities, to partner with iwi to provide either social housing of their own, or their own housing development opportunities?

I did not want to take too long. The ground has been well traversed for Ngāti Mākino. Another lesson that I learnt before coming to Parliament from one of my kaumatua was “Eh, dear, when you stand up to talk on those issues about Māori kaupapa, make sure you can whakapapa to it. If you can’t, don’t talk for too long.”

Kia ora koutou katoa.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I would like to acknowledge firstly the presence of the Ngāti Mākino people who are in the House today. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the very youthful face who is sitting in the front up there in the gallery. She does not know it now. She does not know how important this is, but she is here to tell the history of today. In 80 years’ time she will be the only one who will be able to go on to the marae and tell the story of when this Treaty settlement was signed. She does not realise it, but she will be the one passing on these stories from generation to generation, keeping these stories alive for my children and for my children’s children.

I would also like to acknowledge those who came on this journey—some might say it has been a fight, but we call it a journey—who are no longer with us to witness today, who have worked very hard behind the scenes for years and generations for today to actually happen.

I do not like bringing politics into these debates, because actually I think these debates are about the Treaty and the settlements, but I cannot let the Green member’s comments lie. I truly believe in the process that we have got now. I truly believe that the work done by Ministers Finlayson and Turia has been good work. You have waited 20 years to get to this moment today, and I do not believe what the Green member was saying was true. I would hate to think that she could hold up Treaty settlements going forward, because we have got a robust process that is working swiftly.

I would like to acknowledge the Ministers and the work they have done, which has allowed us to come here today and settle through this bill. I would also like to thank the trust for all the work it has done, the true leadership it has shown, and the journey it has taken its people on, as well. That takes time, commitment, and belief that you can make a true difference. Thank you for your work.

Most of all, I would like to thank the Ngāti Mākino people for their graciousness in allowing the Crown to apologise and to remedy some of the wrongs that have been done in the past—and there have been true wrongs in this case. We have heard stories in this House about some of those wrongs, of how rights and properties were removed, of how land was confiscated, and of how you were virtually landless at one stage, when only 0.6 percent of the blocks remained in iwi ownership. That is wrong. But it does show you one thing: it does show you the resilience of the Ngāti Mākino people, a resilience that was built up over generations. I acknowledge that today.

Treaty settlement bills are actually about the future. They are about what we can do moving forward. I would just like to acknowledge some of the parts of the settlement. The trustees of land are to be provided with certain rights and consultations with the New Zealand Conservation Authority. You are getting other rights in relation to Lake Rotomā Scenic Reserve. The bill makes statutory acknowledgments and provisions for the vesting in fee simple in Ngāti Mākino of cultural redress properties.

This one is the one I like the most, and it is the most fitting component of the settlement process: it is the transfer of Ōtamarākau School to trustees. What I like most about this transfer is the motto of the school, which is “A view to the future”. I cannot think of anything that talks about this settlement and the process any more than having a view to the future. I know this will truly make a difference to the future of your people. It will give you tools to restore mana and identity. It will give you something for your culture to talk about and to be able to have ownership of.

Treaty settlements are about the future generations. Louisa talked about relationships not being about grievances—

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

KATRINA SHANKS: Sorry, Mr Speaker. They must not be about grievances with the Crown but about how the Crown and iwi can help each other to progress New Zealand, our country. I think this is a great beginning.

I do believe that history has been made today. It is my pleasure to be here. In fact, I talked to my children this morning and said I was coming to talk about Treaty settlements. They looked at me not really understanding what I was talking about, so I talked about some of the history and some of the stories that we tell and we hear going through this process, especially when we go out as a select committee on to the maraes and listen to the stories and hear the discussions. They still looked at me slightly blankly, but I have started that story with my children, and they will start that story with theirs. So it is my pleasure and an honour to be here to speak on the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill today. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe. Ka nui te ora, tēnā koe e te Kaiwhakamana. Ki a koutou e te manuhiri tūārangi, Ngāti Mākino, tēnā koutou, nau mai, hara mai, whakatau mai ki te Pāremata e takatū nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you. I am very well, and thank you, Mr Speaker. Salutations to you, the visitors from afar, Ngāti Mākino, welcome and draw closer to Parliament standing here ready; acknowledgments to you all, greetings.]

It is with honour that I rise as an elected member to a Māori seat, Te Tai Tonga, to carry on the mahi of the hundreds of Māori who have, since the 1860s, been coming here to Pōneke to carry on the take of their whānau and hapū to Parliament. So it is an absolute pleasure to be here today. I am delighted to be able to share in this occasion with Ngāti Mākino.

But there have been some low points. I am reminded of Wī Pārata, a former member of this House, whose case against the Bishop of Wellington was thrown out by Judge Prendergast, who claimed that the Treaty of Waitangi was a nullity. Thank goodness those remarks are consigned to nothing more than the Law 101 lectures.

Today, for Ngāti Mākino, the Treaty of Waitangi displays its power. The mana that was intended by Hobson and the chiefs of Niu Tīreni all those years ago in 1840 will today acknowledge the past wrongs of the Crown over Ngāti Mākino.

As a new member of this House I have left it to my senior colleagues to tell this Whare of the mana of these people, the Ngāti Mākino, but may I rise to make just a point or two. It always amazes and saddens me when I hear stories of hapū and iwi who decided for their own valid reasons to side with the Crown, and yet still had land confiscated by that taniwha known as raupatu Pākehā. The Ngāti Mākino tried as best they could to stay out of the fracas between the Crown and Waikato, but when the conflict came to the Bay of Plenty, this proud iwi had to make a decision that many hapū and iwi up and down the motu at that time had to make—whom to side with. Inevitably, Ngāti Mākino was split, and with that split the Crown managed not only to undermine the authority of Ngāti Mākino but also to use that split as a show of disloyalty, and like a dog chewing a bone they therefore punished Ngāti Mākino with raupatu by pen and paper. Talk about a loyal employer!

Another point is survey costs. Like I mentioned in debate on the Maraeroa A and B Blocks bills, the hoary old subject of colonial survey fees has raised its head amongst yet another iwi and hapū of Aotearoa with Ngāti Mākino. That same modus operandi was employed by the Crown throughout the country, and it is a sad indictment of the State, the Crown, and Pākehā thinking of the day. That thinking was: “Get Māori into debt with the Crown, and when they cannot pay off that debt with money, they can pay it back with land, and then they can sell it to the only entity that is able buy the land.” You guessed it: it was the Government of New Zealand. That was the same story that we had with Maraeroa A and B Blocks earlier this morning—the same method of operation employed by the Crown.

Was it enough to come up with legislation that made the Crown the only entity able to purchase the land? No, no, it went further than that. It came up with a judicial system that would allow the alienation of Māori land, but to sell there must be a title, and to have a title there must be a survey, and to get the survey and title someone had to get paid. It was a sweet operation: get Māori to alienate their land and to pay for that privilege. Once, the lands of Ngāti Mākino swept from the lakeshores of Rotoiti, Rotoehu, and Rotomā down to the coast at Maketū and Pukehina and Ōtamarākau and Hauone and Pikowai to just a little east of the Tarawera River. By 1890 Ngāti Mākino were virtually landless. Nearly 448,000 acres were alienated, the majority due to Crown purchasing techniques. Even land at Ōtamarākau and Whakarewa—reserves deemed inalienable—were sold. And if that was not enough, the iwi suffered further land loss with the use of that terrible taniwha known as the Public Works Act. Of those 448,000 acres, approximately 0.6 percent, as we have been told, remain in tribal hands.

In contrast to that chequered and dark past, we now come to today, and we have come a long way. The people of this small but proud iwi will be able, in some measure, to leave behind those grievances and start out with a new and fresh mandate.

May I just finish and acknowledge my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee under the capable chairmanship of my whanaunga Tau—the Hon Tau Henare—and also the fellow members of the committee. It has been a real honour and privilege to be able to guide this pire—these settlements—through the House, and to be speaking at this, its final reading. I would like to also acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and his officials and, most important, the people of Ngāti Mākino, who have worked hard to bring this bill, the Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill, to fruition. I mihi to you all and I just wish you all the very best for the future. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a third time.

Karanga

Waiata

Haka

The House adjourned at 12.03 p.m. (Thursday)